VisitBritain: Chairman

Baroness Buscombe: I should like to speak to some of these amendments and explain why we will not be supporting them. I refer in particular to Amendments Nos. 121A, 125A and 182. So far as we can understand, Amendment No. 121A would mean that trusts for trust schools would have to be centrally registered. I do not see the purpose of this since the governing body already has to have regard to guidance on the acquisition of trusts which makes it clear that unsuitable trusts may not run schools. Under the Bill the foundations already have to be charitable. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, evidently believes that registered charity status, together with the additional restriction on persons who may act as charity trustees for a foundation, is insufficient to ensure that trusts are suitable. I also doubt that any school would truly opt to acquire a trust that was actually as unsuitable as she and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, have suggested.
	Amendment No. 182 goes further and underlines the opposition of the Liberal Democrats for the concept of a school driven by parents. While it would prevent non-approved foundations proposing new schools without first registering with the Schools commissioner, it would also apply to groups of parents or any other private promoter. Furthermore, it would require local authorities to seek approval from the Schools commissioner if they wish to establish new schools, which I am not sure is the intention here. This would mean an awful lot more bureaucracy with unintended consequences. Indeed, it is interesting to note that while the Liberal Democrats have spent so much time both here and in another place criticising the Government and the Opposition for imposing central control from Whitehall, here they propose an unnecessary central layer of bureaucracy from Whitehall.
	Turning to a redefinition of the word "foundation", set out in Amendments Nos. 125B to 125D, we see that Amendment No. 125B redefines foundations where a local authority is represented on the foundation. It would mean that a,
	"majority, but no more than 33 per cent., of its members shall be members",
	of the local education authority. However, it should be noted that members of local education authorities are currently prohibited from acting as charity trustees under the draft education regulations 2006 covering the requirements as to foundations. I am not sure what a "majority, but no more than 33 per cent.," means. Perhaps the noble Baroness meant plurality, although perhaps not since it also specifies that a second 33 per cent would be represented by parents. The remaining third would be represented by the community. I am not sure of the purpose behind this amendment. However, it would prevent a number of possibilities, including the possibility of a local authority entering into partnership with a philanthropic organisation such as an educational charity or livery company for the purpose of running a school, which would be a great shame—in fact, it would be a disaster.
	I hope that Amendment No. 125C is unnecessary since I imagine that trusts could already act in the way envisaged in the amendment. Amendment No. 125D would remove new Section 23(b) of the Schools Standards and Framework Act, which will allow the Secretary of State to remove charity trustees. This was raised in another place, at the end of which Sarah Teather MP said that the then Minister had addressed most of her concerns. At the time the Minister made it clear that the removal of a charity trustee was a fallback position to be used in exceptional circumstances and gave compelling reasons for having such a power, particularly that it is impossible to set out in regulations all possible future circumstances. Paragraph 7 of the draft regulations shows that the power can be used only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has acted in any way incompatible with the objectives or purposes of the foundation or the person is likely to bring into disrepute any school to which the foundation appoints governors. I believe that when we are dealing with children in education, it is vitally important to protect them from unsuitable persons. If Clause 125D were accepted, I fear it risks undermining the safety of children by preventing the Secretary of State acting in cases that fall short of the criteria listed in regulations.
	Perhaps I may add a point on the absence of information for parents to act on when choosing a school. We look forward to seeing the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who I know is keen on having some form of information pack. Indeed, he goes further than that by suggesting information centres to give parents the opportunity to gather information easily on the different schools and choices available to them within their area.

Lord Adonis: The governing body will need to take into account the views of parents. We shall debate later the noble Baroness's precise amendments on ballots of parents. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments, but this is the standard procedure for schools taking decisions of the utmost gravity affecting them in many other areas, including a whole range of other characteristics concerning the future of the school. We do not believe that, in qualitative terms, this is any different.
	However, over and above the requirements on the school governing body both in terms of how it makes the decision and the factors that it must take into account, we have given a power to local authorities to refer proposals to the adjudicator when they are concerned about the implications for a particular trust of standards at a school. The adjudicator will then make a professional and impartial judgment, which, of course, will override that of the governing body in the event of that judgment being different. We do not think it necessary to regulate further than that. In particular, we believe that the creation of a national register would act as a barrier to innovation and fetter the freedom of governing bodies to decide what is best for their own schools, subject to oversight by the adjudicator.
	In so far as the register proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is intended to be illustrative and informative to encourage the development of appropriate trusts, this function will indeed be performed by the national schools commissioner, who will keep a record of all trusts established and make it available on his website. Therefore, there will be no need TO use the FoI Act, as the noble Baroness feared.
	With regard to the kinds of trusts that may come forward, we expect that they will include higher and further education institutions, existing successful schools and bona fide education and business foundations. A particular concern of the noble Baroness is whether they can include community trusts. If she means trusts that have local authority engagement within the provisions of the Bill as it stands, they absolutely can. We will give strong encouragement to local authorities to be engaged in trusts alongside other local community groups and organisations which can make a substantial contribution to improving schools.
	Amendment No. 60 would require a notice published by a local authority inviting bids in a competition to specify in what ways proposals would improve education in the area, especially those from disadvantaged homes. I believe we have covered that. The illustrative regulations that I made available to the committee require the notice setting out the invitation to partners to come forward to provide a new school; to explain why the new school is considered necessary; the reason for the choice of sites; the size and age range of the school; and any extended or special needs provision. The notice can also specify other matters, including objectives specifically in respect of disadvantaged pupils or communities. Furthermore, local authorities will judge the competition unless they choose to enter their own proposals, in which case it will be the adjudicator. That will enable local authorities to ensure that the successful proposal meets the needs of the disadvantaged and demonstrates the right characteristics.
	Amendments Nos. 125BA and 125C seek to enhance the influence of the local authority over trusts and trust schools. As I say, we support the concept of a community trust. If that means a trust as set out under the provisions of the Bill, of course it can proceed. The 20 per cent level for local authority engagement in trusts, as set out in the Bill, gives local authorities the flexibility to play a valuable role in brokering those relationships and supporting the formation of trusts in their communities. The 20 per cent figure is also consistent with provisions in local government legislation about local authority involvement in companies and trusts more widely.
	However, we do not believe that it is right to increase that proportion beyond 20 per cent, which will get close to making local authorities the dominant force in a trust. If a local authority wishes to have that level of control over a trust, it anyway has the option of promoting a community school and exercising this control directly, provided that its track record is good enough. When taken in the round, our policy on trusts is balanced, proportional and workable. Our policy on collaboration is enabling and not prescriptive. I hope that I have met the concerns that have been raised.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: The heart of this group of amendments concerns ballots and their consequences and the expression of parental opinion in a clear majority with regard to the establishment of new schools and the laying down of proposals for the establishment of new maintained schools. The essence of the Government's view of the Bill as I mentioned a moment or two ago is that the role of parents should be given the fullest possible width and that parents should be involved in the maintenance and establishment of schools to the limit that is possible within a system.
	The earlier group of amendments that we discussed was intended to give the maximum possible information about future sponsors of schools to parents. This group of amendments concerns the right of parents to make their views known about the establishment of a new community school or a new community special school in certain circumstances where it is clear according to regulation that parents have established that they have a majority wish to go ahead with the establishment of a new community school that should override any attempt to limit that, for example, by requiring the Secretary of State's consent.
	To put it simply, either the Government believe that parents should have the decisive voice in the establishment of one type of school or another, or they do not. We have therefore indicated in this group of amendments the circumstances in which parental opinion should be decisive. One of those is with regard to an attempt put forward by a local authority to establish a new community school where it is clear after consultation with parents that the majority of parents wished that to happen. We do not believe it is right that there should be additional sets of bureaucratic requirements that would override that wish of parents.
	We have also indicated that where a local authority puts forward proposals for a new community school, those proposals should be published if again it is the wish of the parents of children registered at school or registered at feeder schools that the proposals should be considered and should go ahead. Some years ago, parents were largely excluded from the education process. That changed rather dramatically in 1976 with the Taylor commission, which was the responsibility of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who is I am delighted to say a Member of this House. The commission proposed that one-quarter of the governors of the governing bodies of maintained schools should be elected by parents and should represent them.
	One concern that we have about this Bill is that with trust schools and academies the role of parents is decisively reduced. We find that hard to associate with a Bill that is intended to give parents a larger not a smaller voice. Therefore, to put it straightforwardly, on the crucial issue of changes in category of schools and on the proposals for establishing new maintained schools, and for putting forward those ideas, we believe that a ballot should be held. The ballot should turn on a majority of parents having their voices heard and their opinions made known, which should be a decisive factor in deciding whether to establish a new school of a maintained community nature or, for that matter, in putting forward such proposals.
	I remind the House what the former Minister, Ruth Kelly, said in another place, when she referred to the common sense of parents. My noble friend quoted her remarks. But if we do not know what parents want, referring to their common sense does not add up to very much. I pay tribute in that respect to the previous Conservative Government, who insisted that there should be a ballot before a school became a grant-maintained school. Some 2,000 ballots were duly held, after the establishment of the idea of grant-maintained schools, on which the Government made it plain at the time that parents would be given the opportunity to express their views. One-third, or about 800 of those 2,000 ballots, went against the proposal for the grant-maintained school, and that was respected by the Government, who did not go ahead with imposing grant-maintained status on schools whose parents did not wish it. In two-thirds of the cases—that is, some 12,000 ballots—the parents agreed to the establishment of grant-maintained schools, which duly went ahead. We on these Benches would profoundly regret a reduction in the influence and voice of parents, and we cannot believe that that is what the Government intend, as it is not what they have said.
	So what is the argument against ballots, in straightforward terms? The strangest one that I have heard so far, which was put forward in another place, was that ballots would in some way restrict the likelihood of foundation schools being allowed to go ahead and restrict the innovatory prospects for academies and CTCs, so that it would not be wise to give parents this major part in the system. One thing that has emerged clearly from discussions on the Bill, from beginning to end, in discussing children with special educational needs and those who are disadvantaged and whose parents do not take a full part in concern for their education, is that it is absolutely crucial to a good education that parents are involved from the beginning to the end. It is crucial that their association with their child's future and school and with their own responsibilities in that respect should be considered as a primary purpose of legislation.
	Sadly, we live at a time when there is not a great deal of trust in the political system and when more and more people argue that they are not consulted and listened to and that their views are not taken fully into account. There is a simple mechanism for taking those views fully into account—a mechanism that has been tried and tested over many decades in this country and which, above all, should apply to schools. It has been much welcomed by parents, who have enthusiastically taken part in ballots of this kind. Indeed, the grant-maintained school ballots attracted turn-outs of 67 per cent and more on average, far above the level of turnout that one associates with local government and roughly level with what one associates with general elections. There is no evidence whatever that parents are apathetic about this kind of question; indeed, they feel very deeply involved.
	Not to prolong the discussion—although I believe it to be absolutely central to the whole nature and quality of this Bill—we must ask whether we believe that parents should be fully involved. If so, why do we not trust them to make that decision on the basis of a properly organised ballot on the crucial issues of changing a school from one category to another and of whether a school should continue when there is a proposal to discontinue it? Surely, we should listen to the parents and, when they are of suitable age, the pupils. I beg to move the amendment, and I do so with very strong feeling about how much is at stake.

Lord Adonis: The amendments would amend the process by which schools are established and, in some cases, interpose another statutory layer, the parental ballot, into the local decision-making process.
	Parental ballots were the subject of long debates and, indeed, a ballot in the elected House of Commons, which voted by a huge majority of 291—that is, 412 votes against 121—against proposals similar to these. The Governments arguments against these proposals have not changed: first, a ballot may be an appropriate form of consultation in some circumstances—I am strongly in favour of local ballots in appropriate cases, including local referendums conducted by local authorities—but both governing bodies and local authorities have powers to conduct such ballots at present. It would be disproportionate to require ballots for a change to trust status to take place. Secondly,if ballots are to be mandatory, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, the precise electorate for the ballots would need to be set out either in primary or secondary legislation. It would be highly problematic to do so and it is not attempted in any of the amendments before us.
	Thirdly, it is fairly obvious from the debate so far that the essential motivation behind these amendments is one of antipathy to trusts and trust schools. This is shown by the fact that there is a whole range of other equally—if not more—fundamental decisions affecting the character of schools and local educational provision, in respect of which no amendments requiring ballots have been tabled. For example, there are school closures—including the closure of special schools, the single most emotive issue for parents that crosses my desk as a Minister—changes to admissions arrangements, the addition or subtraction of 6th forms—another highly emotive issue for parents—the addition or subtraction of special needs provision, the change to specialist status, the choice of specialism, the relocation of a school and the move in a locality from a three-tier to a two-tier system.
	All those are hugely difficult and often controversial issues of educational policy for individual schools and local provision, and there are no amendments down to ensure that these are subject to ballots. Nor do I recall the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Children Bill which would have required ballots on the setting up of children's centres, or the judging between, for example, proposals put forward by existing state schools as against those put forward by private and voluntary sector providers.
	Fourthly, there are, however, substantial requirements as to consultation in all the changes of school status and organisations set out in the Bill, and on proposals put forward by local authorities. These are in accord with established consultation procedures for the other kinds of change of status and provision I have just mentioned. They are satisfactory. Furthermore, in the case of a school wishing to acquire a trust, there is a further specific power in the Bill for local authorities to refer such plans to the adjudicator when the local authority believes there has been inadequate consultation, including with parents. These amendments are neither necessary nor desirable. That concludes our case.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: Briefly, I will not push these amendments at present, but I shall make a couple of points. First, we have specifically called for a ballot on the discontinuance of a school, one of the areas the Minister referred to. We have indicated that, where a school is to be discontinued, there should be a ballot of parents because they are profoundly affected by it. We proposed, in a new clause, that there should be a meeting of parents before any final decision is made. That goes some way to refute the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gould of Brockwood, who suggested that we were only pressing for a single ballot once there was to be a change in the nature of a school, or the advancement of a new school. That is not the case: we specifically called for a parental meeting.
	The Government are using the argument that this will delay everything in an extraordinary way. Surely what matters most, as has been central to our discussion of this education Bill, is that there should be the highest possible quality of schooling and that children should be secure in a well organised, accountable and responsible school. That is what concerns us. As we have often argued from these Benches, there should be a level playing field. Parents should have a strong voice in the choices to be made. Whatever our views may be on a particular trust school one way or the other, our crucial responsibility is to ensure that parents are given the choice of the kind of education they want for their child. Frankly, without a ballot or a requirement for a parents' meeting, it is difficult to see why governing bodies should think they know what parents' wishes might be better than the parents themselves. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the G8 Summit which took place on 15 to 17 July in St Petersburg. I pay tribute to President Putin's chairmanship and the Russian Government's handling of the summit. The whole of the summit was understandably overshadowed by the tragic and terrible events in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. For days, we have seen the innocent killed by terrorism, as a deliberate act, by Hezbollah; civilians killed in the course of military retaliation by Israel; and the disintegration of our hopes for stability in this, the most fraught area of dispute in the world."Over 1,600 rockets and mortars have fallen on northern Israel, in an arc from Haifa to Tiberias, deliberately targeting civilians. In Lebanon, more than 230 people have been killed, the vast majority of them civilians. Houses, roads, essential infrastructure, factories and Lebanese Army facilities have been damaged. Once again, we have made it clear to Israel that it is essential to take account of the humanitarian situation, and ensure that military action is proportionate. We grieve for the innocent Israelis and innocent Lebanese civilians who are dead, for their families who mourn and for their countries that are caught up in the spiral of escalating confrontation. "There are also more than 10,000 British nationals in Lebanon, and probably many more, including a significant number of dual Lebanese British nationals. I know that people who are there, and their families in the UK and elsewhere, are worried about the situation. We are working as hard and as quickly as we can to ensure that we are able to evacuate all those who wish to leave. We evacuated 63 of the most vulnerable British nationals from Beirut by air yesterday, but the safest way to evacuate large numbers of civilians is by sea. This is a complex and enormous logistical operation, which we are co-ordinating with our EU and international partners. "Teams of consular, military and medical officials have deployed to Beirut, Cyprus and Damascus. We have six ships in the region or heading for the region: the "York" and the "Gloucester" are now offshore, and the "Illustrious", "Bulwark", "St Aubens" and "RFA Victoria Fort" are heading there. The first evacuation by ship is taking place today, and further evacuations will follow. The advice to British nationals is to stay put and remain in contact with the British Embassy."However, we should be in no doubt about the immediate cause for this situation. It started with the kidnap of an Israeli soldier in Gaza and then action by Israel, targeting Hamas on the Palestinian side. Then, without provocation, Hezbollah crossed the blue line established by UN resolutions, killed eight Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two more. Israel then again retaliated in air strikes against targets in Beirut. This situation therefore began with acts of extremism by militant groups that were, as the G8 said unanimously, without any justification and, of course, were designed to provoke the very response that followed. "In the communiqué issued by the G8, we refer to and condemn the activities of the extremist groups and, more elliptically, as we say, "those that support them". For most of us at the G8, we can be less elliptical. Hezbollah is supported by Iran and Syria: by the former in weapons—weapons incidentally very similar if not identical to those used against British troops in Basra—by the latter in many different ways and by both of them financially. Therefore, what is at stake could not be more stark. "On the one side, there is Lebanon, a remarkable democratic achievement from the days when Lebanon was a by-word for instability and conflict. I have once again given the Prime Minister my solidarity and support in the immense difficulties he now faces. There are also those in Israel and in Palestine desperate to see progress towards the only solution that will ever work there; namely, two states, Israel and Palestine, both democratic, both independent, both at peace. But on the other side are those who want no compromise, who cannot see that terrorism is not the route to a solution but a malign, fundamental obstacle to it. They persist in terrorism, knowing that its impact there is the same the world over: to divide, to create hatred and to drive out negotiation. That is the purpose of it. "So what can be done? I know many wanted the G8 to call for an immediate ceasefire on the part of Israel. Of course, we all want all violence to stop and to stop immediately, but we recognise that the only realistic way to achieve such a ceasefire is to address the underlying reasons why this violence has broken out."In respect of Lebanon, the G8 proposed rapid work on inserting an international security presence in southern Lebanon to stabilise the situation, ensure that the terrorism from the Lebanese side ends, and, most important, to provide conditions in which the Lebanese armed forces can take control and assist in doing so. "Meanwhile, the UN Secretary-General's special envoys are in the region, and will report to the Security Council later this week, and US Secretary of State Rice also intends to make an early visit. We welcome and support these and other efforts to calm the situation."We also encouraged dialogue between the Lebanese and Israeli Governments and we pledged at the G8 further economic support to Lebanon. And of course we demanded the return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Only in this way can we at last implement UN Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1680."In Gaza, we made clear that our goal was an immediate end to the violence, and we put forward the measures necessary: release of the Israeli soldiers and of the Palestinian Ministers and parliamentarians; an end to attacks on Israel; resumption of security co-operation between Israel and Palestine; restarting political contacts between Israeli and Palestinian officials; and an end to Israeli military operations and the withdrawal of Israeli forces. But let us be very plain. We can and must stabilise the existing situation in Lebanon and in Gaza. We must use such stabilisation to help Lebanon rebuild and eventually to re-begin negotiations between Israel and Palestine. But at root, we need to recognise the fundamental nature of the struggle in the region, which has such far-reaching consequences far beyond that region and consequences even in countries like our own. "All over the Middle East there are those who want to modernise their nations, who believe as we do in democracy and liberty and tolerance. But ranged against them are extremists who believe the opposite, who believe in fundamentalist states and war not against Israel's actions but against its existence. In virtually every country of the region, including on the streets of Baghdad, such a struggle is being played out. The danger is that moderate voices get squeezed. When this current vision abates, this is the issue to which we must return, in the way the G8 outlined two years ago but has not so far put fully into effect."Let me touch on issues that were raised elsewhere. On Africa, we made modest, but important, progress in taking forward the commitments of last year through the discussions on infectious diseases and education, including: scaling up action on HIV/AIDS through replenishing the Global Fund in 2006 and 2007; new initiatives on vaccines for malaria and pneumoccocus and fully funding the education fast track initiative. We agreed to review progress on Africa again at the G8 Summit in 2007 and I have asked the International Development Secretary to set out key milestones for the coming 12 months in his next report to Parliament. These will include us supporting 10 African countries, developing long-term education plans and getting the debts cancelled for five more African countries. Kofi Annan will also convene the Africa Progress Panel to monitor progress on commitments given."I also discussed Sudan with a number of G8 leaders and Kofi Annan. We agreed the situation in Darfur continues to be unacceptable and the need for a quick deployment of the UN force."On trade, at the final session, it was at last agreed by all to empower their negotiations to go further. The cost of failure for the world's poor, global growth and multilateralism would be high. Presidents Bush, Barroso, Lula, Mbeki, Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Singh of India all agreed to show flexibility, so we asked Pascal Lamy to immediately convene trade negotiators to turn this clear commitment into action that delivers real cuts in agricultural tariffs, and subsidies and progress on non-agricultural market access. I do not minimise the very substantial obstacles that still remain, but at least this renewed commitment from the US, the EU and the G20 was immensely welcome."We also agreed a strong package for poor countries, including $4 billion a year aid for trade and action on rules of origin and we remain fully committed to ensuring that, in any event for this round, it would be utterly wrong for there not to be a full development package for the poorest nations."There was a fascinating debate on energy at the summit, of direct relevance to this country. There was a virtual consensus around the fact that energy prices will continue to rise, with an increase now predicted of around 50 per cent in energy demand by the year 2030; that climate change is now universally accepted as happening, including by the United States, and therefore there is an urgent necessity to take the measures to make further economic growth sustainable; and that countries will therefore need to have balanced energy policies in which clean coal technology, carbon sequestration, renewables and nuclear power will have to play a part. Our own energy review was therefore absolutely in line with that consensus."On nuclear, what was interesting was the statement by China that it intends to develop nuclear power, by India that it regarded it as indispensable and by many of the main oil producers including Kazakhstan that they would also balance their reliance on their own oil and gas with nuclear. It was also the conclusion of the J8, the young people from around the world who debated the issue."The G8 also agreed on the need to accelerate discussions on an inclusive dialogue for a post-2012 framework and that framework importantly includes the United States, China and India."The G8 supported the need for a goal to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations, which will be a central part of the future framework. The Gleneagles dialogue meeting in Mexico would be the next step in taking this work forward."This was a summit held in circumstances none of us could have foreseen. It was dominated by the Middle East, but its conclusions on Africa, on trade and on energy will, I hope, stand the test of time and I commend the conclusions to the House."
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness Leader of the House for repeating the Statement—an unusually lengthy Statement and a very useful report back. We had a full Statement yesterday on the grave situation in the Middle East and the House will be grateful for the further update that we have just been given.
	Do the Government agree with the view of the United States that much of the responsibility for the fomenting of terrorism— I think that was the word President Bush was feeling for—lies with Syria, whose president was recently feted by the Government in London? What leverage has that courting of President Assad given us in Damascus?
	Do the Government also agree with the view of the United States that the greatest responsibility for the financing and arming of terrorism lies with Iran? Is it not essential that Damascus and Teheran get a united message, not only from the G8, but also from China and India, so recently tragically affected by terrorism, that the promotion of terrorism must stop?
	How much could have been done to relieve the evils of poverty and suffering that we see in Gaza and in Lebanon if only one hundredth of the money poured into financing terrorist training guns and arms had gone into education, the fight against disease and the promotion of civil society, as the G8 rightly asked?
	It is clear that a solution must include the release of Israeli hostages, the end of rocket attacks on Israel, the end of the bombardment of Gaza and Lebanon, whose governments were lawfully elected, and a future for Lebanon without armed militias, as so many of its people have shown they want.
	The G8 brought together leaders of the world's major powers. There were great declarations but what specifically will be done? Some people have the impression that the role of the Prime Minister is largely to act as a Sherpa for President Bush. Can the noble Baroness assure us that Britain will make a distinctive and independent contribution? How widespread is support for the Prime Minister's concept of an intervention force? How could it be injected when the level of violence is so high and without the consent of the contending parties? How could we make it more valuable than the existing UNIFIL? Would it have a potential combat role in restoring stability, that the British Army finds itself undertaking in Afghanistan? If so, who would take part? What undertakings were given in St Petersburg? How could our stretched Armed Forces help?
	We know that the Prime Minister is considering visiting the Middle East, preparatory to a possible visit by the US Secretary of State. Is there any view on when that visit might take place and what the objectives would be?
	Naturally the whole House is concerned about the safety of British citizens, but who is co-ordinating the evacuation effort? How many British citizens are in Lebanon? How many have been evacuated? Is it 10,000 in, 63 out, as the Statement indicated? What is the current advice to British citizens and are they all able to access it? Does the noble Baroness have any concerns that our efforts to date have been less decisive than those of some other countries? How many people can be accommodated on Cyprus and what contingency plans are being put in place for a long stay?
	We welcome the united stance of the G8 on restraining the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, but what in practice was decided in relation to North Korea? President Putin said that it was too early to speak of sanctions on Iran, but if Iranian intransigence continues, will the G8 states not have to return to the Security Council with a view to possible sanctions? He also laid great emphasis on energy policy, which is scarcely surprising. Was the UK one of the countries that, in the words of the communiqué, underlined the important contribution of nuclear power to global energy security? Does the noble Baroness share my disappointment at the relatively weak emphasis on reducing energy consumption when there was a great deal on advancing oil and gas sales? Can she confirm that all states subscribed to the declaration that producer countries, notably Russia, should be enabled to take over energy assets in consumer countries? Does that mean that the UK Government will positively welcome acquisitions by Gazprom and other Russian giants in the United Kingdom? Can she write to me if she does not have the answers now about what discussions there were, if any, about corporate governance issues?
	I know that the noble Baroness will share my disappointment that the crisis in the Middle East meant that there was less momentum behind the initiatives on Africa and fighting world poverty. The communiqué was a little thin on concrete action on that front—"modest" was the word that the normally effusive Prime Minister used. The noble Baroness will not be surprised if I ask her to tell the House what steps were agreed against the murderous Mugabe regime. I note that that was not mentioned as one of the key milestones for the International Development Secretary to report on.
	A successful trade round will do more than anything else to alleviate poverty. Are the UK Government satisfied that all the G8 leaders are prepared to compromise to do a deal? Time is running out, but world attention is focused elsewhere. There was discussion on Kosovo and Nagorno-Karabakh. Does the noble Baroness agree that the only sensible outcome should be multiethnic? Did the UK Government raise the issue of Georgia and separatism in Abkhazia and Ossetia? How does the UK assess risks of linkage if western members of the G8 encourage independence for Kosovo?
	This is a time of major tests for the G8. The urgent need is for peace in the Middle East and a common front to eradicate violence and terrorism, but the vital need for long-term progress is on trade and the eradication of disease. Does the G8 not also need to show renewed momentum and intensify efforts to achieve those worthy goals?

Lord McNally: My Lords, for the man and woman in the street, I suppose there could be no greater contrast in watching their evening news than seeing the pomp and circumstance of a St Petersburg summit—a gathering of the most powerful nations on earth—and a fast cut to a disaster in the Middle East, of which those mighty powers seem totally impotent to influence the outcome. That is the worry: the juxtaposition between the activities of the big powers and the capacity of individuals and organisations to set in train destabilisation of a whole region. In the light of the experience in St Petersburg, has the quartet of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU any feelings of special responsibility and activity at present? If we have to understand why there should be no call for an immediate ceasefire, when should such a ceasefire take place?
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke of the situation of UK nationals in the conflict zone. A large number of countries is taking action at present. On the tapes I saw about eight different evacuation plans under way. Is there any co-ordination to make those plans more effective?
	Like the noble Lord, I should be interested in clarification of the reported interest of the Prime Minister in undertaking some kind of shuttle diplomacy in the region. I may return to that subject when concluding my remarks. I agree with the Prime Minister that the fundamental nature of the struggle in the region has to be understood. Do the Prime Minister and the Government accept that a settlement of the Palestine/Israel conflict is a pre-condition of winning the war on terrorism? If the conflict goes unresolved, it will remain the major recruiting sergeant for extremists seeking a holy war with the West.
	Do the Government agree that a disproportionate use of force is counterproductive and has within it the seeds of a wider regional conflict with unforeseeable consequences? In that respect, have the Government made any further clarification of their policy on UK arms exports to the region?
	On the other issues in the summit, progress was made, not least on trade. But there was a feeling that the crusading urgency that dominated Gleneagles a year ago as regards the war on poverty has been lost. As one aid organisation observed, after the G8 leaders promised to make poverty history last year, this summit has been a damp squib. Is there not a particular onus on the United States and the EU to stop blaming each other and to take action to follow up the Gleneagles promises to break the trade deadlock?
	On energy, I find it most interesting that Russia, although no longer considered a military superpower, is undoubtedly an energy superpower. Do the Government have initiatives to involve Russia more fully in future discussions about energy needs?
	There is a dilemma in respect of Iran. On the one hand, we want to talk to Iran about its nuclear ambitions. Yet it stands squarely in the dock as the major funder of terrorism. How shall we have a dialogue with such a country? Who will take the lead in trying to talk to Iran?
	Whenever I am faced with these issues, I feel somewhat old-fashioned and dated. I belong to a generation that thought that we could settle disputes by the international rule of law and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Yet each day we see people who believe that being marginalised by those who think that those disputes can be settled by military action and by violence, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
	That is why I return to the Prime Minister. It is important that we do not allow moderate views to be squeezed out by those, whether they be Islamic fundamentalists or American neocons, who think that they can set the world to their own particular idea of right. I believe that the Prime Minister has a much larger role than he seems to give himself. I do not want to see him as a Sherpa for American Presidents or Secretaries of State; I want to see him using his undoubted international stature to be active in bringing some sense and reason to this situation. He knows that, if he does, he will have support from across this House and the country.

Baroness Amos: I shall try to respond to the points raised. If, however, I miss any out, I undertake to write to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, or to the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
	I begin with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the role of Iran and Syria. We are very concerned about the role of Syria and Iran. Through their support for Hezbollah, those countries are encouraging extremism, threatening the stability of the region and putting peace in the Middle East further out of reach. On what the UK Government can do particularly about Syria, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, might have missed the fact that we no longer have ministerial contact with the Syrian Government since the murder of Rafiq Hariri. However, we will continue to work with others who can put pressure on Iran and Syria and, through them, on Hezbollah.
	The G8 statement makes it absolutely clear that there was support from all G8 countries for a stabilisation force. Clearly, there is an issue about the relationship between that force and the current UN force in Lebanon, which has a role in monitoring. At the Security Council on Thursday this week, all these issues will be discussed and looked at further. The important thing is that we want all sides to stop the fighting.
	On the issue of our citizens, we, the United States, France and Canada probably have the largest numbers of nationals in Lebanon. We think we have about 10,000, plus as many more who are dual Lebanese citizens. The arrangements that we put in place in case every one of those individuals wants to leave have to be robust, safe and secure. That is being co-ordinated through my right honourable friend Adam Ingram. The MoD, the Foreign Office and all the relevant parts of government are working together on this. I can assure noble Lords that we are doing much of the international co-ordination and are working very closely with our EU colleagues.
	Obviously, we have to work closely with the Government of Cyprus. They have worked closely with us on this. It happens to be the holiday period in Cyprus, so they are also dealing with a large number of holidaymakers. However, I must say to the House that they have dealt with this extremely impressively. Our plan is to charter aircraft from Cyprus to bring individuals back to the United Kingdom.
	I can say more about the number of British naval ships that are close to Beirut. We will continue the evacuation in the coming days, but things are moving fast and I have no doubt that we will issue a Written Statement to the House if there are any more developments.
	On energy security, the G8 made a number of things clear: the importance of the increased diversification of sources of energy; the fact that nuclear power has a role to play; the focus on renewables and alternative energy sources; and the importance of an inclusive dialogue post-2012 to include China and India. This builds very closely on the Gleneagles dialogue, and I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that we were very pleased that what came out of this year's G8 summit mirrored so much of what came out of our own energy review.
	On the wider issues relating to Russia, which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned, I understand that there were robust and frank discussions about G8 values, human rights issues, the need for G8 countries to be open to criticism and therefore the importance of having independent media and an independent judiciary. These were not reflected in the communiqué, but these discussions were held and included a discussion of the situation in Chechnya.
	On Iran, to which the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde, referred, there is a plan for a UN Security Council resolution on Iran's nuclear programme in the next 10 days or so. As to who will continue that dialogue with Iran, we would like the Iranians to respond to what we thought was a very generous package from the European Union. If it does not respond positively to that package, we will have to look at this issue again and think about how we continue the dialogue.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked about the quartet, which we see as the custodians of the road map. We want a ceasefire and an end to hostilities, but this needs to happen on all sides. I think that we would all agree that we cannot only look to Israel in that respect.
	I assure the House that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others will continue to work extremely hard to bring about a resolution in the region. This issue has personally engaged the Prime Minister for many years. I remind the House that on 4 July he said to the Liaison Committee,
	"unless we manage to get the situation into a different position then the Israelis are going to continue to take punitive action and the Palestinians are going to continue to have a burning sense of injustice. Now I have learned enough about this situation over the years to realise that going in and condemning either side is not deeply helpful ... What frustrates me more than anything else about the Israeli-Palestinian situation is there is no agreement about the final outcome".
	My right honourable friend has been dealing with these issues for many years, and he will continue to exert all the influence that he can to ensure that we make progress.
	On trade and the deadlock, my right honourable friend chose his words very carefully when he talked about those at the summit who were prepared to go further in the trade negotiations and to deal with them flexibly. On the basis of that agreement, Pascal Lamy had a meeting last night with the G6 countries. I do not know what the conclusions of that meeting were, but next month will be critical. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I, too, am old-fashioned and I cannot say how much it pains me that those who want to negotiate and who have moderate voices on these issues are being squeezed out by the terrorists. We must do all that we can to ensure that the conclusion of the crisis in the Middle East is one that we want and not one that we would all find it impossible to support.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think we agree that there are different ways in which to read history. I know that from my own background and, indeed, from my presence in this House. The impact of colonialism and imperialism on countries in the Caribbean is viewed in very different ways in the country where I was born from how it is understood in the United Kingdom, so it is absolutely right that we appreciate how people understand their history. But our responsibility now as politicians is to seek a way through what is a highly complicated, emotive and deeply sensitive issue. That lies at the core of our responsibility. I make no judgment in terms of whether we should be surprised at what is happening in the Middle East, but what we should seek to do is use the influence and power we have as a nation, working with those around us, to try to find a solution. That will not be easy, especially given the deep-rooted and deep-seated historical nature of this crisis.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, all the proposals which have been put forward over the past few days have been looked at either in formal or informal discussions in a number of ways. Of course what we want is a ceasefire; that is our top priority. But it has to involve the participation of all sides in the conflict. Therein lies a major problem because those countries which have an influence on Hezbollah are fuelling the conflict. At this point they are not remotely interested in moving forward in a negotiated way.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. With my hat on as the chair of Christian Aid, can I encourage the Government in the G8 process with the aid/trade/debt cycle that was begun last year and on which there is a still a long journey to travel? In the midst of all the other issues that are lurking, I hope that we shall lose energy around that.
	I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to comment on the wider issues at stake here. Again without making any judgments because we all understand the huge political complexity surrounding these things, does she accept that there is potentially a lethal cocktail at work in all this, one made up, first, with the despair of millions of people who have been displaced in the Middle East? I have met some who are still carrying in their pockets the keys to their houses from nearly60 years ago. Secondly, the reality is that we are dealing with predominantly young societies with the future in front of them, so despair is a very lethal force in the Middle East. Thirdly—and the noble Baroness might like to comment on this with regard to the G8 Summit—there is an impression that the leaders in the G8 are not entirely in agreement among themselves about what to do. That leads to a sense of impotence. When you have despair and impotence at work, is that not the sort of lethal cocktail which drives people into the hands of those who present other sorts of solutions, ones sadly involving violence and damage to innocent people?

Lord Blaker: My Lords, are we to understand that there was no mention at all of Zimbabwe either in the conference or in the margins of the conference? If that is correct, is it not rather extraordinary, given the importance that the Prime Minister has attached to the whole of Africa over the past few years? Considering the absolutely appalling conditions in Zimbabwe, which get worse every week, is it not surprising in relation to the credibility of the treaties that the African countries have signed to exercise human rights, the rule of law and good governance? Is it not also relevant that, after many years, the Government of Zimbabwe has not yet replied to the biting criticism made by the Human Rights Commission of the African Union of conditions in Zimbabwe? Should not these matters have been raised?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, Zimbabwe was not discussed. I do not find that extraordinary, precisely for the reasons that the noble Lord has just set out. If you look at the whole of Africa, you are talking about 53 countries, of which Zimbabwe is one. In the light of the G8 agenda and the agenda of the continent itself with respect to the new partnership for Africa's development, and in the light of the peer review mechanism, where we have seen Ghana and Rwanda go through a very intense period of having their economies, political systems and governance looked at, we have seen the stable transition from one democratically elected Government to another, we have seen conflicts resolved, but where we have a continuing difficult situation in the Sudan, it would be absolutely wrong to focus on Zimbabwe as an example of what is happening in the entire African continent.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister feel that the G8 Summit adequately addressed the catastrophic issue of AIDS? Last year the G8 gave the very welcome commitment that all who needed treatment should be in receipt of it by 2010. Warm words were expressed at this summit, but little by way of action that could be charted. Indeed, the concentration on infectious diseases tended to emphasise, if anything, the flu pandemic, which obviously does not at the moment threaten the same number of people as does the AIDS crisis.

Lord Elton: My Lords, the Statement mentions urgent work on inserting an international security presence in which no doubt we shall be involved. The Statement comes hard on the heels of another on reinforcements to Afghanistan in which the strain on our resources was illustrated by the fact that we were counting platoons that we send out in reserve. The House is anxious about that. Can the Leader assure us that we shall be kept informed of any commitments of significant size that it intends to make in this instance?

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I welcome very much the statement concerning the Doha round. If we remind ourselves that this round of negotiations has been going on since 2001, to have now a deadline of one month is at least a challenge to the international community. I am very aware also that we have one year now during which the President of the United States has his fast-track authority to agree such deals.
	However, even we have a problem with the European Union. How does the Leader of the House feel that the British Government will influence even the European Union to ensure that the Trade Commissioner has sufficient authority in this last month to make sure that this deal happens? Apart from the immediate challenges of the Middle East, which are huge, this is one of the most important elements of the G8 discussions over the past weekend.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is right about the time that this has taken. I take very slight comfort from the fact that the Uruguay round took much longer before it was completed. On the British Government's role with respect to the European Union, the noble Lord will know that it is not just a case of influencing the European Union and the Trade Commissioner. The Trade Commissioner is operating on behalf of 25 EU countries. Part of our responsibility is to influence our EU colleagues. Having been involved in some of these discussions myself over time, that is not always as easy as it should be.

Baroness Walmsley: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 88, which is grouped with it. The amendments seek to place a prudent and sensible brake on the irresistible march of the academies project and ensure that where one is being is considered the local authority must have regard to the impact on the other schools in the area and not just consult them. Any bright shiny new school is going to be attractive to parents andpupils but in the current climate of falling roles the impact on other schools will be even greater. The Government say that they want parents to have choice, but without the amendments they could end up taking choices away from parents and children through the closure of other schools that might become unsustainable.
	Amendment No. 66 asks for a proper evaluation of the existing academies before any more are established. Given that handing over £20 million and the control of the school to some unknown body that does not necessarily have any track record in running an educational establishment is a radical step, I would have thought that a proper evaluation was only a reasonable and prudent measure to take. The Education and Skills Select Committee in another place reported last year on academies after a two-year inquiry into secondary education. It questioned the average £7,000 per pupil extra cost of establishing an academy and described the current programme asan untested model. It recommended a halt to the programme pending proper evaluation given its lack of coherent strategy, inflated cost and the impact of academies on neighbouring schools.
	Many but not all of the academies take over failing schools and we on these Benches are not averse to directing extra resources towards helping the pupils in such schools to achieve their full educational potential: quite the reverse. We believe that we should spend more on them, as long as the money is carefully and wisely spent. But we question the wisdom of throwing quite so much money at a set of managers who have not yet proved themselves. Why do the Government think that being able to run a large retailer, manufacturer, service industry business, charity or Formula 1 motor racing competition qualifies a person to run a school? Of course it is accepted wisdom that the leadership in a school is an important factor in its success, but by leadership we usually mean the head and management team, not some person or organisation that promises £2 million funding to sponsor a school and then does not deliver it, as many of them have not.
	The Select Committee found that the link between schools with different kinds of governance and improving standards was not proven. We have to look at the intake. Academies showed mixed results and many were below the national average at key stages 3 and 4. Many academies take over low attaining schools but they do not all show the progress that we should be able to expect at such a high cost. The cost is not just financial; the loss of accountability to the local community and the impact on other schools should be added to the financial cost.
	The Times Education Supplement recently analysed the GCSE results of academies using the new measure of including English, maths and science in the benchmark of A to C grades. In 2005, only 16 per cent of academy pupils achieved that; an increase of only 3 per cent on predecessor schools. Two of the three longest opening academies had worse results on the new measure than the schools they replaced. When GNVQs were removed, the percentage fell by at least half in eight of the 14 academies studied. At Walsall Academy the achievement of five good A to C grades slumped from 67 per cent to 7 per cent when the Times Educational Supplement used that measure. That calls into question the use of GNVQs in skewing the apparent achievements of some schools. Research undertaken by York University quoted by the Select Committee suggests that academies are raising their standards by improving their intake rather than by doing better with the same pupils, which is what they are supposed to do.
	Even Ofsted has suggested that standards in some academies, such as Unity City Academy in Middlesbrough and West London academy are a cause for concern. The Government make two conflicting arguments: on the one hand they argue that academies need more time to improve having taken over failing schools; on the other hand they argue that academy results are so good that they need to push on to expansion without delay. They cannot have it both ways. Which of these is true? If academies need more time to improve, why is not the same amount of time to be given to or maintained schools that are failing?
	All in all, academies are an unproven model—and it would be reasonable for the Secretary of State to halt their expansion until the various factors that contribute to their success for failure are properly evaluated. When that evaluation is done, it should be done on accepted scientific principles of comparing like with like. It would be only fair to compare each academy's performance with that of a similar school under normal local authority governance in a similar locality that had had the same amount of money thrown at it. Indeed, my Liberal Democrat colleagues in Liverpool have already volunteered some of their schools for such an experiment. They would welcome the extra money, and they are confident that given the same amount of resource they could do at least as well as any academy, and probably better. Will the Minister take up that challenge?
	In his response to Amendment No. 16 on the first day in Committee last week, the Minister said that the Government's structure of academies was more likely to raise standards. What shred of evidence does he have to justify such a claim? There has been no study to justify any such statement. If there is no evidence, I call on him to accept Amendment No. 66 forthwith and to commission a fair study with a level playing field to see whether such evidence exists anywhere, except in the Prime Minister's dreams. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: The two Liberal Democrat amendments in the group seem a little inconsistent, at least in what they propose, because the Liberals, having been long-term opponents of league tables,are now inventing their own to beat academies about the head with. Similarly, having been long-term proponents of vocational education, they now spurn academies because that is the direction in which they have turned. Inconsistency and Liberal Democrats—perhaps I should expect them to go together.
	I support some aspects of Amendment No. 184. I particularly want to press the Minister on the Freedom of Information Act. The Department for Education and Skills is a difficult department when it comes to the Freedom of information Act. The central part of the department is extremely helpful and co-operative, and I cannot think of a better department, but some of its important offshoots are exempt, the principal one being UCAS, which I know is quasi-independent. Universities are in; the department is in; schools are in—but UCAS is out.
	A lot of information flows from schools directly to examining bodies—for instance, about exemptions that have been given to pupils in respect of SEN—but it is not available under the Freedom of Information Act because it does not stick to any government department, but goes directly to the examining boards, which are, in that sense, providing a government function on a commercial basis and are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
	Along with such anomalies, it would be very useful to clear up any lack of transparency with respect to academies, city technology colleges and/or their funding agreements and to bring those institutions into line with the generality of schools and educational institutions. I do not imagine that that can be done through a funding agreement. I would be happy to be corrected, but I would be surprised if a funding agreement could give the rights and the detail of rights that are available to a citizen under the Freedom of Information Act.

Baroness Buscombe: I am compelled to refer to Amendments Nos. 66 and 88 on academies. They look remarkably similar to those already debated in the Commons. It is clear, I fear, that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to the autonomy and independence that are the driving force in the concept of the academy school. The spirit of localism so often claimed by the noble Baroness's party as their own is somewhat betrayed in this approach. It seems that localism is all very well in so far as it enforces state bureaucracies at a local level, but that it does not extend to the level of a local school.
	These amendments revisit old ground. The same amendments were debated at great length in the eighth sitting of the Committee in another place. I do not want to rehash that debate; it has already been undertaken in Parliament. Indeed, the honourable Member for Brent East—whose amendments I think they were—promised to go away and work on the topic. Even so, the amendments in front of us today remain completely unchanged. Indeed, the honourable Member herself admitted that Amendment No. 66 is technically flimsy.
	Amendment No. 88, on the other hand, would give powers to the local authority to prevent an academy from being set up. Members of another place have already conceded our points on this debate. The honourable Member Annette Brooke, of the noble Baroness's party, stated that she agreed with many of the points made by my honourable friend Nick Gibb. The Minister, Jacqui Smith, rightly stated that the Liberal Democrat argument was based on the false premise that the approach to and achievements of academies were unproven.
	I do not want to detain the Committee, but it is important to defend and, in a sense, champion academies' achievements to date. I shall try to be brief. PricewaterhouseCoopers' second annual report on academies shows that the independent ethos of academies is helping to drive up standards:
	"A very clear and significant finding from the early research is that there does seem to be a significant difference in the learning culture in new Academies compared to their predecessors. For example, 8 out of 10 pupils in the survey said that the 'teachers at this academy really believe that all pupils can achieve'. Similar numbers of staff surveyed said 'Staff at this academy believe that all pupils can achieve regardless of their social background'".
	We should bear in mind, as the noble Baroness,Lady Morgan, said, the fact that these schools are being set up in areas where pupils have been failed by the state in the past.
	The Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments that would consult pupils on matters affecting schools, which shows a clear pupil endorsement. However, I wonder whether they would be so keen to listen to those pupils who endorse academies. Those pupils and teachers of academies are evidence of a part of the potential of academies. The National Audit Office report Improving poorly performing schools in England cites the statistics of success:
	"Key Stage 3 test results for 14-year olds at academies improved faster than the national average: 9 per cent in English and mathematics compared with a national average improvement of 6 and 7 per cent in English and mathematics respectively".
	What is more, of the three academies that had been open for more than a year in 2004, all had improved GSCE performance.
	We can see the vast improvements in standards made by CTCs since their inception—a useful evidential analogy, given the structural similarity. CTCs benefit the most disadvantaged in our society. While the proportion of pupils on free school meals who achieved the magic five A* to C grades at GCSE in 2004 was 16.8 per cent in community schools, academies produced the amazing result of 58.3 per cent of such children achieving that. The academy scheme is in its earliest years, yet it is already showing wonderful promise and giving children the best chances in life. Let us not forget that we sanctioned the different legal regulation of academies, with full parliamentary scrutiny, in the Education Act 2002. Academies are kept in check by the terms of their funding agreements, and cannot go outside the admissions code of practice. We should give them a chance.
	I know that the Minister will have a lot more to say in support of academies. In essence, I will never support measures that would halt the contribution towards greater freedom, more efficient management and much higher standards in our schools. These amendments should not be supported.

Lord Adonis: No argument causes me moredistress than the one put by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that I should be incoherent or inconsistent in my arguments. I hope at least that the Government are clear and consistent in their arguments. There is no inconsistency whatever in simultaneously arguing that academies that have taken over from some of the most challenging and lowest-performing schools in the country are improving—which they are, above national average rates—and that they have not magically become among the best schools in the country in the short time that they have been open.
	We do not have to look at our expectations for the future in a hypothetical way, let alone a completely unscientific one, to take the noble Baroness's claim. We can look at two specific, strongly encouraging pieces of evidence. The first is the experience of the city technology colleges, which have now been in existence for 15 years. I am a great believer in evidence-based policy. In my experience of education policy, there are few areas of innovation that have yielded more tangible, beneficial results than the experience of city technology colleges. If the noble Baroness has not visited any, I encourage her to do so. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who was the moving force in their establishment. Their success is shown in the work of Professor David Jesson, who found the city technology colleges to be the subgroup of secondary schools with the most substantial value added of all the groups of secondary schools that he analysed. I will send the noble Baroness the data. With academies, we have broadly sought to take the city technology college model but to apply it much more resolutely to areas of disadvantage than was the case with the city technology colleges.
	The second piece of evidence supporting the progress of new academies is the evaluation undertaken to date. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was quite wrong in suggesting that there had been no evaluation. Onthe contrary, my department has paid veryconsiderable sums—as it does to consultancies—to PricewaterhouseCoopers to conduct an annual evaluation of the academies programme. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, quoted from the second annual evaluation, which was published last year. I understand that the third one will be available shortly.
	The evaluation as a whole gives a highly positive picture of the progress made by academies. It concluded that there was a significant difference in the learning culture in new academies compared with their predecessor schools, with, for example, 97 per cent of staff thinking that the principal really believes that the academy can make a difference to pupils' learning whatever their family backgrounds; with 90 per cent of the parents who named an academy as their school of choice attracted by the high academic and teaching standards of the academy; with 87 per cent of parents satisfied with the quality of the education provided to their children at the academy; with 85 per cent of pupils stating that they were pleased with their school work and had high expectations; and with 90 per cent of parents agreeing that most pupils liked going to the academy and that their children enjoyed attending the school. The report goes on to make an important point about governance. It says that the new academies have 78 per cent of staff agreeing that the sponsor brings expertise that would not otherwise be available to the academy, and 82 per cent of staff agreeing that the sponsor's resources have a positive impact on pupils' learning.
	I never like to leave an argument unreplied to, so I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and copy to other Members of the Committee my response to each of the assertions that she made about academy performance, because I can meet them all. That is in no way seeking to claim that the academies that have taken over from weak or failing schools have been able to turn around performance to become highly successful overnight. That is not the case; the issue is the rate of improvement that they had been able to make. Evaluation has taken place. The great majority of Ofsted reports have been satisfactory or excellent, leading Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, David Bell, to say in August last year that, with regard to academies, in some cases what has been achieved in a short time is "nothing less than remarkable". That was said by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, not by a Minister.
	Taking all this evidence in the round, I believe that we are right to proceed with a policy that, let us be clear, is focused at one of the most intractable areas of educational reform—that of bringing good schools to areas that have had low, and often chronically low, standards not only for years but often for generations. There is nothing that this Labour Government should take more pride in than that we are targeting investment and reform together, not simply thinking that we can put the money into areas that have been failed so consistently in the past. My noble friend Lady Morgan has been engaged in the academy movement through the outstanding work of ARK, a charity that brings great expertise to this area. The proof of the pudding is in parental views and whether parents are prepared to apply to academies for their children. The evidence is highly encouraging.
	Amendment No. 88 would require local authorities to have regard to the potential effect of academies on other schools in the area. In point of fact, local consultation is already required in the development of every academy proposal. All those with an interest must be consulted, including neighbouring schools, FE colleges and sixth forms. Decision makers, including local authorities, when deciding whether to support an academy proposal, take into account the effects of proposals on other provision in their area.
	I will depart from my normal practice and make just a small party-political point in passing. I am glad to say that what I have just said includes Liberal Democrat authorities, many of which have been very strong supporters of academies. Indeed, Liberal Democrat authorities account for some 19 academies that are open or under development, including no fewer than eight in Southwark—more than my noble friend suggested. To make an even more developed party-political point, I will add that one of those academies in Southwark will be enthusiastically sponsored, in co-operation with the Liberal Democrat authority, by an editor of The Orange Book—an excellent publication, which I recommend to Liberal Democrats in this House as precisely the positive direction in which they should be moving to catch up with us in new Labour by modernising their approach to public sector reform.
	I will now return to more narrow educational issues. My noble friend Lord Judd spoke passionately about equal protection of the interests of pupils in academies. We believe that adequate protection is afforded. I have written to my noble friend once on this issue, going through each of the areas that he raised in turn. I will do so again, taking the three specific areas that he raised, but I believe that the protection is adequate.
	I say in answer to my noble friend Lord Plant that the funding agreements that govern academies are legally enforceable agreements between the Secretary of State and the academy sponsor. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is quite right about the Freedom of Information Act not being applicable, but that is a matter to do with the wider law. The Department for Constitutional Affairs is about to consult on bringing academies within the coverage of the FOI legislation. The Government believe that that is a welcome development. We have nothing whatever to hide in respect of the activities of academies. Although there will be consultation before the relevant orders are laid, we are favourably disposed towards ensuring that outcome.
	Finally, in respect of the Human Rights Act, I assure my noble friend Lord Judd that academies are, in our view, plainly public authorities under the Act and will thus be subject to the provisions of that Act. That has not yet been tested in court, so I cannot say absolutely categorically what a court would rule, but that is the view of my department's legal advisers.
	I expect that we will return to this matter at a later stage, but I hope that, when I have been able to provide even more information and argumentation in writing, we may be able to dispel some of the arguments that have been advanced about academies.
	To end on a point made by my noble friend Lady Morgan, in my experience the cure for disliking academies is to visit one. I strongly urge my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches to visit some academies. We have nothing to hide. Some of the most impassioned journalists have taken up the cause against academies on principle because they involve engagement with the private sector and all kinds of horrible things like that, but once they actually see one in action—I can give the noble Baroness a list of academies to visit—they find that the reality of improved educational performance and the palpable difference that is being made to the life chances of children tend to overcome even the most rigid ideology.

Baroness Walmsley: I am so sorry; the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is not in his usual place—he has taken up residence on the Cross Benches for the moment. I wonder when anybody said that academies were vocational schools.
	We on these Benches are very enthusiastic about vocational education but we think that it should be available to all children through secondary schools and not just city technology colleges, which we accept have done great things.
	I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that I have not said we oppose all academies. We just want to see the evidence through a proper dispassionate study, rather than rushing headlong. Although some parents are very enthusiastic in wanting academies in their area, in some areas parents are rejecting academies. That is their choice and I would stand up and fight for their right to make that choice.
	The noble Baroness commented on Southwark. Responsible local authorities will of course say yes to shiny new schools and millions of extra pounds and if academies are the only way of getting those things for their local children, they will grab them with both hands, and so they should. It is their responsibility to do the very best for the children in their area. There has been no lack of co-operation from the local authority in Liverpool to the establishment of the academy that she mentioned. Liberal Democrat authorities have not been obstructive to the expansion of the academy programme but when we have a policy like this, which is using a great deal of public money, we want to see the evidence.
	I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that if she wants to know Liberal Democrat policy, she should ask a Liberal Democrat and not just believe what she hears from somebody from another party. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report—

Baroness Walmsley: I accept from her that in this House, as in another place, people from different parties will agree with parts of what other people say, but the basis of the amendments we are tabling is that we are asking for the evidence in a dispassionate proper scientific study before we go any further with this programme. If our request for such a report is not accepted, then on the establishment of any academy we would like the local authority to have to "have regard" and not just consult on the effect on any other school.
	The PricewaterhouseCoopers report made some of the comments the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made but it also made other points that were not so complimentary about some academies. I do not deny that individual schools have achieved improvements. I would not want to take one iota away from the achievements of the teachers, the governors, and in particular the children. Others have not done quite so well. But you cannot claim that the PricewaterhouseCoopers report is the cross-cutting report we really need. If academies prove themselves, such a study as I am asking for will give the Government their evidence.
	I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that the Conservatives have never tabled the same amendments in this House as in another place if they were not satisfied with the answers they were given. We were not totally satisfied with the answers we were given, and that is why we have tabled the amendments again and had tonight's useful debate.

Baroness Walmsley: I do not care where they come from if I agree with them—and I did agree with many of the amendments that were tabled by Labour rebels in another place.
	I welcome the statement the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made that there is no magic wand in terms of the academies. It was always going to be the case that some of them were going to struggle with the situation they found they took over from failing schools. None of us wants to support failing schools to carry on failing but the PricewaterhouseCoopers and the report that he quoted were looking only at the academies themselves. They were not comparing them with similar schools that were given the same amount of money. If any scientist had tried to publish a paper on this basis, the peer review would laugh them out of the profession. If you are going to say that the success of these schools is down to the form of governance they have been given, you must be jolly sure that all the other factors are the same and that the only difference is the system of government. Otherwise it is just hearsay.
	I have been accused of inconsistency in tabling both of these amendments. As I mentioned earlier, Amendment No. 66 asks for proper study and proper proof but we accept that even in your Lordships' House, the wisdom of our remarks is not always accepted and that we may not get that amendment accepted. It is therefore perfectly consistent to ask in Amendment No. 88 that if the programme is not halted pending further proof, each academy application should be accompanied by the local authority having proper regard to the effect on other schools of the establishment of that academy.
	I have one or two very small points to make.The Orange Book is blue-sky thinking and does not represent Liberal Democrat policy. Also, we have been criticised for continuing to put pressure on the Government but that is our job. As an opposition party, we are here to put the Government under pressure. If they are going to put a lot of public money behind something, we must ask them to prove that the money is well spent. That is the job we have to do as an opposition party, rather than just lie down and have our tummy tickled like some domestic pet. That is the job for an opposition party and that is what we will carry on doing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Adonis: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 94 to 101, 104, 109, 117 to 120, 124, and 133 to 136. I have written to noble Lords about these amendments so I hope I can be brief.
	Turning firstly to Amendment No. 73, Clause 8 deals with proposals under Clause 7 relating to community schools. The effect of this amendment is to make it clear that regulations may prescribe matters which the Secretary of State will take into account in deciding whether or not to consent to the publication of proposals for a new community school in a competition.
	The clause as originally drafted referred only to the educational standards of authorities and individual schools and the extent of diversity among the schools. This amendment will allow a wider range of factors to be specified in regulations than would be appropriate on the face of the Bill, and for these to be more easily modified following consultation if this is felt necessary.
	Regulation 7 of the illustrative regulations made available to the Committee indicates the kinds of factors we have in mind. These will include the range of curricular specialisms and the range of extended services offered by schools, as well as the general standards of attainment and the range of special educational needs provision.
	Government Amendments Nos. 94 to 98, 100, 104 and 109 are technical and remedy deficiencies in the drafting of the Bill. The only amendment of substance which I should just say a word about is Amendment No. 97 which provides that a local authority may publish proposals for an increase in the number of pupils admitted to a school. As it stands, the Bill provides only for a local authority to propose an increase in the physical capacity of a school. There may be circumstances in which a local authority wishes to increase the number of pupils admitted to a school without having to enlarge the premises significantly. This amendment brings the Bill into line with existing legislation governing school organisation, which recognises this distinction between a physical enlargement and an increase in the number of pupils admitted to a school.
	Amendments Nos. 99, 101, 117 to 120, 124, 133 to 136 are to protect the assets and the role of existing foundations that support schools. They follow extensive discussions, in particular with the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, which account for the majority of such trusts. They give these trusts broadly the same protection as applied before the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving Amendment No. 79, I shall speak to another large group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 80, 82, 85, 86, 90, 93 and 102. Amendments Nos. 79, 80, 82, 85 and 86 relate to aspects of school closures, mergers and consultations about mergers and closures, whereas Amendments Nos. 90, 93 and 102 deal with issues arising from alterations and expansions. I would like to speak first to that first half of the group, and then to move the second half.
	Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 relate to the special case of when two primary schools merge, and seek to probe the Government's thinking on whether that requires a competition to set up a new school. To reduce the tensions that can result from the merger of an infant and junior school, both schools are often closed and reopened as a new school with a new name, rather than one school simply being taken over by another. That matter was raised in a letter dated10 May 2006 to the new Minister for Schools,Jim Knight, by Vernon Coaker MP on behalf of one of his constituents. In his letter of response dated31 May 2006, Jim Knight explained the proposed regulations governing the establishment of a community school and the criteria governing the Secretary of State's consent. He concluded:
	"Proposals for new schools would normally fall under the above procedures, but the Bill does make provision in clause 9 for proposals for new schools, including community schools, outside a competition with the consent of the Secretary of State. We would envisage that mergers of infant and junior schools would not normally require a competition".
	The letter was written after the current version of the Bill was published on 25 May, and it is assumed thatit should have referred to Clause 11 rather than Clause 9. Whichever clause was intended, it would be helpful if the Minister could provide further reassurances about the reorganisation of primary schools in that regard.
	Amendment No. 82 relates to Clause 15(4). At present, that subsection relates only to rural primary schools and largely re-enacts Section 70 of the Education Act 2005, which we argued over at some length in this Chamber about 18 months ago, just before the last general election. Section 70 of that Act was the result of a government defeat in this House and required that, before making a proposal to close a primary school, the relevant body—the local education authority—must take account of the effect of the closure on the local community and transport implications.
	We argue that these criteria should be applied not just to rural schools but to any local school. The knock-on effects of closure need to be considered. There needs to be wide consultation, not only with parents but also with local district town and/or parish councils.
	Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 relate to Clause 17 which is concerned with the closure of special schools and seeks to extend the consultation required should the Secretary of State avail himself of the powers granted by this clause to shut a special school. Amendment No. 8 would provide that the consultation should be extended to the parents of children attending the school. Amendment No. 86 also provides that whenhe gives notice of his decision under subsection (4) he sets out the reason for his decision.
	In Committee in the other place the Minister argued that both amendments were unnecessary and that Clause 17(3)(d), which states that consultation should take place with,
	"such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate",
	might be expected to include parents and children attending the school. We respond that "might be expected" is not good enough. Given the emphasis that the Government are putting on parents' views and preferences, and that they also regard the voice of the child to be an important aspect of consultation, we feel that both should be on the face of the Bill as consultees.
	The Government also argued that having to set out the reasons for his decision—as provided in Amendment No. 86—was an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on what might need to be a hasty decision in the interests of the health and safety of the children involved. Again, the amendment does not demand any lengthy report but merely that the reasons for the decision are given in at least summary form when the notice is issued. For a Government who produce so many unnecessary pieces of paper—not to mention unnecessary legislation—I believe that this is not too much to ask.
	Amendments Nos. 90, 93 and 102 deal with the issues arising from alterations and expansions in schools. Amendment No. 90 is a probing amendment to clarify that Clauses 18 to 23, which come under the heading of "Alterations to schools", include the physical alteration of the school premises to accommodate more pupils and to add a sixth form. Those cited in subsection (2) and (4) of Clause 18 are all alterations to governance structures. But since much has been made of encouraging successful schools to expand, it is to be assumed that such expansions are indeed covered by these provisions of the Bill. What has not been generally publicised is that any such expansion requires—as I understand from subsection (2)—a community school to become a foundation school. I seek clarification from the Minister if that is the case. As we have made clear elsewhere, we have little sympathy with this element of government policy and regret in particular the shift away from governors representing the local community, including elected parent governors, to a governance structure which reflects the aims, aspirations and preferences of those running the foundations.
	We also seek further assurances from the Minister about the role of Building Schools for the Future. When I asked in Committee last week whether they would be using Building Schools for the Future as a lever to encourage schools to become foundation schools and to require them if they were to participate in the programme to become foundation schools, the Minister said very firmly that that was not the case and that there was no intention to use that programme in order to push schools into foundation status. I should be grateful if the Minister would reiterate that statement because it is an important one.
	Amendments Nos. 93 and 102 argue a similar cause. In arguing the case about closures and the need for consultation, I quoted previously the Ofsted report of October 2003, The influence of school place planning on school standards and social inclusion. I do not wish to repeat what I read out previously. In particular, the report warned that allowing popular schools to expand to meet parental demand risks sending an already struggling school into a spiral of decline. Perhaps I may repeat the warning contained in the report: losing a school does not enhance a community. Amendments Nos. 93 and 102 provide that, when expansion is considered, the overall provision of education within the community as a whole should be considered, not just the narrow interests of the particular school or one section of the community. Clause 1 puts the duty on LEAs to promote fair access to educational opportunity and to enable every child to fulfil their educational potential. Yet allowing a free-for-all expansion of popular schools, allowing other schools to wither on the vine, does not necessarily promote fair access and can result in the most disadvantaged being even more disadvantaged. Amendments Nos. 93 and 102 ask, therefore, that when proposals for expansion are being considered, the impact of that expansion on the overall provision of education by the LEA as a whole and by other schools in the area is taken into account.
	There are two important aspects regarding further education colleges: the provision of specialist vocational courses for 14 to 16 year-olds; but also for 16 onwards. Those further education colleges often provide a vital facility. Schools do not have the specialist facilities to provide vocational courses such as construction or hairdressing. It is important—I know that the Government are sympathetic to this—that where schools want to provide such specialist courses they should seek to collaborate with the further education colleges rather than seek to duplicate the facilities. Two sinks stuck in the corner of a domestic science room and the taking on of a part-time hairdresser are not enough to offer a course in hairdressing. It is important that those children are trained using the good facilities which often exist at further education colleges.
	Many who move from school to further education colleges do so because they have not enjoyed school. What is surprising is how often they speak highly of the courses they study at the further education colleges where they retake their GCSEs, study for A-level and often do surprisingly well. In that sense, further education colleges are a very important second-chance saloon for some of the students at our secondary schools. Proposals to expand sixth forms can have knock-on effects on the local colleges—both sixth form and further education colleges. It is important that those knock-on effects are taken into account in considering the expansion of schools. I ask the Minister to confirm the promise that his colleague gave in the other place. On 25 April, Jacqui Smith said:
	"At present, statutory guidance specifies that among those who must be consulted are other local authorities and other schools who may be affected by the proposals, parents and teachers in the area, local dioceses or national faith groups, the Learning and Skills Council and any other interested party, for example the early years development and child care partnership when the proposals affect early years provision".
	The next paragraph states:
	"I accept the hon. Lady's"—
	that is my honourable friend Sarah Teather, the Member for Brent East—
	"argument that FE colleges in the area would have an interest and would therefore need to be consulted. To put that beyond dispute, I am happy to give the Committee an assurance that statutory guidance on consultation for new schools and additions to existing schools under the Bill will specifically include FE colleges in the area as well as schools and the Learning and Skills Council. I hope the hon. Lady finds that assurance satisfactory".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 25/4/06; cols. 373-4.]
	I should like an assurance from the Minister that that will be set into regulations.
	Will the Minister confirm that any expansion plans will be considered within the overall context and implications for the community? Secondly, will he specifically confirm that consultation with FE and sixth-form colleges will be included within the statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State? I beg to move.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: In moving Amendment No. 81, I shall speak to Amendment No. 205 in my name and in that of other noble Lords.
	During our consideration of the Bill, we have heard some truly inspiring speeches from all sides of the Committee and, indeed, from the Minister on what constitutes education. Members of the Committee have talked about reaching academic and sporting potential, about children with special needs, about learning social skills, about a positive ethos, about developing creativity, and about education being a force for social good.
	I do not consider any of these qualities necessarily to be brought about by faith schools. I have tabled the amendment because I know that there are concerns on all sides of your Lordships' House about the potential expansion of the number of faith schools under the umbrella of foundation schools. I am a humanist and an associate of the National Secular Society, so it is obvious where I am coming from. However, other noble Lords do not share this stance and will have other things to say. I believe that those of us who are concerned share a similar view; an expansion of faith schools could divide communities when we should be trying to unite and integrate them. Reports on Bradford and Burnley from the noble Lords, Lord Ouseley and Lord Clarke of Hampstead, respectively, pointed out forcefully the need for young people to feel more integrated. Lord Ouseley's report states:
	"Some young people pleaded desperately for"—
	more cultural and social interaction—
	"to overcome the negativity they feel is blighting their young lives and leaving them ignorant of other cultures and lifestyles".
	Where better than in schools to do that? The Muslim researcher and journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has pleaded for schools to represent fairly the society in which we live without,
	"breaking it up into minority groups aided and abetted by the state".
	Ninety-six per cent of respondents to an online poll conducted by a Radio 4 Sunday programme in October 2005 thought that "faith schools breed segregation". Diverse faiths can be, and are, celebrated in schools and all benefit from learning about other cultures and from mixing with a variety of peers.
	What about the parents? My school governing body has parents of three different faiths, which is of enormous benefit to the school. Parents of different cultures organise, contribute to and mix at social events. They benefit, the children benefit and the school benefits. I understand the historical reasons for faith schools, which was admirably described by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, in her speech on Second Reading. However, that was then and this is now, where we are.
	Why should we worry that foundation schools will increase the number of faith schools? Non-religious schools have been closing to reopen as faith schools. Eight—one in three—of the new academies are controlled by religious interests; three of them replaced non-religious schools. This expansion represents a huge public subsidy. I hope tonight for clarification on the right reverend Prelates' Amendment No. 128, on the dispersal of land, and how that will work. It is very worrying that the expansion of religious schools may well decrease job opportunities for non-religious professionals. I would seek clarification from the Minister on the right reverend Prelates' Amendment No. 129. What is taught in religious education may not be broad and balanced, and admissions may be carried out on the basis of religion. I am told that faith schools get good academic results. Any selective school gets good academic results. A study by the think tank Iris in 2005 showed that many faith schools take in pupils whose family circumstances are very different from the neighbourhoods in which they live. One school, with only 10 per cent of children receiving free school meals, was in a postcode area with more than 45 per cent on free school meals. One faith school had much vaunted GCSE results. In fact, this relied on small class sizes and only six pupils taking GCSE. I am told that faith schools increase parental choice. Choice is rarely possible in small communities. In larger ones choice is often at the expense of others. Faith schools choose their pupils and proliferation of such schools will decrease choice for other parents unless they are prepared to join, or pretend to join, a religion.
	I mentioned ethos. I simply do not believe that faith is a prerequisite of positive ethos. Ethos depends on a variety of things: pupil intake, parental support, good teaching, a good pastoral system, links with the community and parents, and so on. I go back to my main concern about faith schools—that they separate children out at an early age, when children should be learning to live together for the sake of a harmonious society. I believe that we take great risks when we segregate children and deny them a broad education.
	I move on briefly to Amendment No. 205, which is longer than my remarks will be. This is about assemblies and collective worship. Inclusive assemblies can quite clearly have educational value, not least in building a collective ethos by bringing a school community together. They can contribute greatly to pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. Many schools provide such assemblies, but the current law, which requires "collective worship", is against them in this regard. The Ofsted review of secondary schools in England published in 1998 noted the widespread non-compliance with the requirements for collective worship and remarked that it "raises questions about the" 1988
	"Act and its interpretation, and in particular whether schools in a broadly secular society can or should bring their pupils together in order to engage in worship".
	What will the amendment accomplish? It would replace the requirement to conduct "collective worship" with a requirement to hold assemblies that would further pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural education. Teachers, including non-religious teachers, can and do use assemblies to demonstrate that moral values and responses to ultimate questions of existence can be inclusively framed. I have done it myself when a teacher. A reform of the law would encourage such good practice. Sometimes people will insist that all matters spiritual must be religious, but this is not the official position. Ofsted's Handbook for the Inspection of Schools states:
	"Spiritual development relates to that aspect of inner life through which pupils acquire insights"
	into what is "of enduring worth" and which is characterised by the qualities that I spoke of earlier. If the law on worship in assemblies is changed, new guidance issued under the new law would contribute to better sharing of good practice in the provision of inclusive and educational assemblies, and would represent a new entitlement for pupils that could command wide consensus, quite unlike the current requirement to provide collective worship. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: In this group, Amendments Nos. 83 and 129 stand in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham. I would like to speak to my amendments and, to save the Committee's time, to comment on the other amendments in this diverse group.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: I did not see the noble Baroness standing. I am sorry.

Baroness Tonge: I support the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Flather, in tabling this amendment.
	I hope that I understand some of the Government's reasons for wanting more faith schools. Certainly there is an issue concerning money. If a group is prepared to put up some money for the establishment of a school, that could be very welcome, although I would rather that the taxpayer paid that money because I believe that education is the most important service that any state can provide for its people. However, I can understand the reasoning.
	I can also understand that because Anglican and Catholic schools exist, we must be fair to other faiths. I was born and bred an Anglican and I believe that we should all recognise the tremendous contribution that the Christian faith has made to education in this country. I suspect that there were times in this country when education would have died out altogether but for the churches that kept it alive. I hope that people will always recognise that.
	To be fair to the people of this country, we should surely ask the Government not to extend the privilege of faith schools to all other faiths in our communities, but to say, "Without abolishing our existing faith schools, how can we make them cater for the needs of the entire community?". I suspect that someone in the debate today will say, "Many of them already do"; and that is quite true. There are many Anglican and Catholic schools that cater for all religions in their communities. That is a very good thing, and I have no criticism of it. However, to use their existence as an argument for extending other faith schools is very dangerous. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, argued very eloquently that faith schools have a better ethos or achieve better results than non-faith schools. I would contest that view, because the people who send their children to faith schools are often selective and much more supportive parents than parents in non-faith schools may be.
	The Government are giving us reasons for allowing other faith groups to fund schools, to make capital available to have other faith schools in this country, but surely the Government must feel a little afraid that in future generations, if not in this one, it will lead to a division of communities, as we have seen in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland the flames were fanned by the existence of different faith schools. Surely, the Government must see that. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he proposes to do, if other faith schools are set up in this country, to ensure that our communities are not divided. For example, will he ensure that children of all faiths attend Muslim schools? Are we going to insist that there should be a mix of children in all our schools, or are we truly going to have the children in our communities, sometimes from the age of five, divided in Muslim, Catholic, Anglican, Hindu and Jewish schools? It is a recipe for disaster. We must understand that.
	In conclusion, I would like the Minister seriously to address this question: what will the benefits be and how will the Government ensure that our communities are not divided further by the existence of more faith schools?

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: I apologise to the Committee. I hope that I can now speak to my two amendments and to the other amendments in this group.
	The first amendment standing in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham is Amendment No. 83. That would require local authorities, when they consider whether to propose the closure of a school, to have regard to the balance of denominational provision. For some time there has been a clear expectation from the Government that local authorities will preserve the denominational balance. The Bill provides a good opportunity to place that expectation in primary legislation rather than in regulations or guidance. That is particularly important if, as is proposed by the Bill, school organisational committees are abolished. From the point of view of the dioceses of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, those have been very good forums in which local authority members have engaged directly with representatives of the Churches and listened to their points of view. The world envisaged by the Bill will not provide such obvious contexts for that engagement.
	Amendment No. 129 would modestly extend the freedom of governing bodies of schools with a religious character to appoint staff who will actively support the ethos of the particular school. The first part of the amendment would affect only voluntary-controlled schools, almost all of which are Church of England schools. In the case of Roman Catholic schools and roughly half of the Church of England schools that are voluntary-aided, the governing body has a majority of its members appointed by the Church locally, and new faith schools are also in that voluntary-aided category. The voluntary-controlled schools have a minority of governors appointed by the Church and are controlled, often strongly as to their character and ethos, by the local authority. I have to admit that the name is now a little curious because local authorities do not have that kind of relationship with any school, but the category remains.
	Voluntary-controlled schools have always been able to appoint up to one-fifth of their teachers as so-called reserve teachers, in the same way as teachers are appointed in voluntary-aided schools, taking into account their own faith commitment and, therefore, their willingness to give active support to the religious character of the school. At present the head teacher of a voluntary-controlled or foundation school cannot be a reserved teacher. Since the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, it has been possible for the governing body of voluntary-controlled or foundation schools to select a head teacher on the basis of his or her fitness and ability to preserve and develop the religious character of the school.
	If this amendment is agreed, the governing body will be able to go further and appoint a head teacher in the same way as a reserve teacher is appointed, being selected directly on the basis of his or her commitment of faith. That would happen only if the governing body decided that it should count the head teacher appointment as one of its reserve teachers. Of course, the amendment does not require that to happen, nor does it permit the Church to impose this provision, since the Church-appointed governors are in a minority—usually consisting of only two or three. It would, however, make it possible for a head teacher also to be a reserve teacher.
	The second part of the amendment clears up an oddity that has become obvious since the 2003 legislation. Under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations, it has been possible for organisations able to demonstrate a genuine occupational requirement in relation to a particular post to appoint to that post, taking into account the successful candidate's religion or belief. However, in the 1998 Act there is a bar against taking into account a candidate's religion or belief when appointing support staff in a school with a religious character. This amendment would remove that bar, which would then allow a genuine occupational requirement to be applied if it could be demonstrated in a particular case. The kinds of posts that we have in mind are high level teaching assistants, clerks to the governing body, non-teaching house staff—all roles that carry a considerable importance in relation to maintaining the ethos of a Church school. The safeguards would be strong, the governing body would need to agree it and it would need to be justified under the 2003 regulations. So much for my specific amendments.
	I should like now to make some brief comments on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. This may initially appear of little relevance to Church schools as it seeks to preserve the status quo and not to close any existing religious schools. I nevertheless hope that Members of the Committee will resist it, as I believe that it would have a major impact, not only on the 7,000 or so existing Church schools—mostly Church of England and Roman Catholic—but also on local authorities. It is a matter of debate whether it would have the effect desired by its supporters of promoting community cohesion—an effect of course which I wholeheartedly support. Faith schools do not necessarily lead to social division and I believe that community cohesion needs to be addressed in other ways.
	The Church of England has an established plan to expand its provision in secondary education sinceThe Way Ahead, the 2001 report by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. His thesis was that with one in four primary schools currently being Church schools, but only one in 20 secondary schools, we need to expand our secondary provision. Since the publication of the noble Lord's report, 29 new secondary schoolshave been opened or considerably expanded; always in response to local demand and with parental andlocal authority support. There are currently plans for 120 additional secondary schools, the majorityof which will serve the more disadvantaged communities.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing's report made clear, Church of England schools are intended to be distinctively Christian and inclusive. We want them to make space for those of other faiths and for those of none, as well as for Christian and local children. There is a very good example in the diocese of Peterborough where we have recently opened a Church secondary school in Northampton. It is sited in an ethnically mixed area. It has a significant proportion of pupils from ethnic communities and a variety of faiths. A number of leaders of other faiths fully supported our initiative in opening the school two years ago.
	There have also been changes in primary provision. Over the past five years, as primary roles have fallen by 4.9 per cent, Church of England primary school roles have fallen by only 1.7 per cent. That is because Church schools are popular with parents and their number has consequentially increased disproportionately. To prevent the opening of new faith schools, as this amendment would suggest, would therefore potentially limit parental choice—a point that the noble Baroness has recognised—precisely when they are exercising it in favour of such schools. Reorganisation within local authority areas always involves Church schools, often involving the closure of some and the opening of new Church schools. This amendment would therefore effectively blight some local authority reorganisation.
	In 2002, the House of Bishops publicly declared its support for other faith schools. In recent years, there has been a welcome increase to six Muslim schools in the maintained sector, with perhaps 30 or 40 more to follow. There is a similar number of Jewish schools. That is not in itself divisive. I believe that it is rathera clear signal to the British Muslim and Jewish communities that they are a fully accepted and important part of British society. With a similar commitment to being distinctive and inclusive, their existence is a move against extremism and, I believe, for rather than against community cohesion.
	I shall turn more briefly to the amendment relating to religious education and collective worship. The Churches and the faith communities, including a representative of the British Humanist Association, were closely involved with the then Secretary of State in 2003-04 in developing a non-statutory framework for religious education. In many ways we on these Benches can see the argument for making it statutory. But it is a good piece of work and it is already having an impact on local authority agreed syllabi. In the Church of England we are committed to our schools basing RE on its provision.
	In February of this year, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth in his capacity as chairman of the Church of England Board of Education signed a statement with other Church and faith leaders welcoming the framework and committing all our Church and faith schools to teach sympathetically about other religions. In our view, now is not the time, as the framework beds down, to make changes in legislation affecting RE in schools of any kind. The time may come, but the framework would need adaptation to make all its provisions work in a Jewish, Muslim, Sikh or Hindu school. We would prefer to build gradually on that recent, hopeful and very positive development.
	We would also strongly support the retention of the current law on collective worship, which we see as flexible and permissive. The right reverend Prelate recently wrote to the Secretary of State in his capacity as chairman of the Joint Education Policy Committee of Churches. He asked the Secretary of State to enable trainee teachers and those preparing for work as school leaders to be better trained in understanding the opportunities that current law provides. We see it as important that children and young people become familiar with the language and silence common to many forms of public worship. They are all likely to attend at the very least at some point in their lives a funeral, a wedding or a baptism.
	I believe that collective worship is a shared experience. It offers children, young people and adults an opportunity to participate in humanity's shared search for God and, in doing so, builds community in and beyond the school. Collective worship in most schools also provides the opportunity for students to gain an awareness of worship and worship practices of faiths other than their own. Above all, it provides shape and formation to that instinct for prayer which is in all of us. Provision for spiritual and moral development without the opportunity of prayer and worship would not have that effect.
	I have already detained the Committee for some time on these important matters, but I hope that Members will permit me one final comment onthe amendment in the name of the noble Lord,Lord Lucas, which seeks to impose restrictions on schools of a religious character in terms of admitting pupils of the same faith as the school. As I have already indicated, the Church of England is committed to ensuring that our schools provide an education of the highest quality within the context of Christian belief and practice. But it should also be able to provide that education to all who seek it, whatever their faith. In practice, many Church of England schools admit a majority of pupils without any faith test. But it would be unfair if committed practising Christians living some distance from the school, perhaps in a poorer area, stood no chance of admission against children living near whose parents whatever their belief have been able to afford a house near the school. I believe that the amendment is a sledgehammer that we do not need. We prefer to address the issue more deliberately.

Lord Ahmed: I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Massey and the noble Baronesses, Lady Tonge and Lady Flather, have very good intentions in tabling Amendment No. 81. They have all expressed their concern about division in communities and children being brought up separately. I should like to express my concerns on the amendment and address some of the issues that have been raised.
	Until about six years ago, less than 25 per cent of Muslim children in state-run schools achieved five GCSEs at grades A to C when the national average was about 48 per cent. I congratulate the Government on the standard being raised to 38 per cent, but it is still not good enough to meet the national average. I know that approximately 135 voluntary Muslim schools have raised the standard of education for Muslim children. The pass rate in those schools is about 55 or 60 per cent on average but there are six state-funded schools that are achieving highly: 100 per cent in the case of Islamia; Al-Hijrah is achieving 86 per cent; and the girls Islamic school in Bradford is competing with Eton, Harrow and some of the 10 best British schools.
	Islamic schools have raised the standard for Muslim children, who are achieving less than 25 per cent in five GCSEs grade A to C. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, talked about the problems in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley. I live in the north and visitall those towns regularly and I know about the disturbances that took place. I know that not a single student from the Islamic or faith schools was involved in the disturbances. Yes, we have segregation and, yes, we do have a division within the communities. There are some state-run schools with 98 per cent ethnic minorities from one ethnic group. I have gone to Rochdale and Bradford. I have been to Oldham. We can go to Brixton or east London: there are schools with 98 per cent of children from ethnic minorities or even some with 99 per cent. It is not the religious divide that is dividing the communities, but there are other divides that also need to be addressed.
	For instance, I have been to the annual awards at the Islamic school Karamia in Nottingham where they have linked with the local schools, where the local schoolchildren, the headmasters and the councillors come to the school and the children also go to the state-run school. There are many who have established relationships with their local schools. They have twinned with local schools or they have some sort of links with local schools where they try to mix the children. The message that we want to send is to make sure that children who come out of the schools become good citizens. They know about their citizenship responsibilities and I know that that is taught in Islamic schools.
	We need to make sure that there is a higher standard of achievement. I am telling your Lordships that the standard of education in Islamic schools has risen. There is no evidence that any of the fanatics, terrorists or extremists are coming out of them. I go to many schools to give out certificates and I know that the best students are coming out of them and going to universities, and that is where they interact and integrate with the wider community and they are at ease with it because that is what they are taught.
	When we talk about parental choice, raising standards and responsibility within the communities, I know as a Muslim that for 18 years the Muslim community was trying to obtain state funding for Muslim schools. We did not obtain it until there was a Labour Government. Thank God that the Labour Government gave state funding because the Muslim community was feeling as though it contained second-class citizens for 18 years because we have Christian schools, Jewish schools, Sikh and Hindu schools; there is no reason why Muslims cannot have schools that are responsible, that raise standards and that make our children good citizens.
	I am sure that we need to take initiatives to try to integrate our children more at local level, but we have to do it in state-run schools first or in parallel with them because we have those divisions in state-run schools too. I hope that the Committee will resist this amendment.

Lord Baker of Dorking: Before I speak to Amendment No. 146A, I want to comment on the speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Tonge, and my noble friend Lady Flather, who all spoke eloquently in favour of secularism? That has a long and honourable tradition in the debates on education in our country. But secularism has never become very popular in our country for historic reasons. It required the French Revolution to create anti-clericalism that led to the exclusion of religious education in French schools. When new countries set up their education systems, America also excluded religious education from state schools.
	But in our country, schools and religion have gone together for centuries. The secondary school I went to, St Paul's, was founded in the churchyard ofSt Paul's. In those days—1509—it had a remarkable foundation by Dean Colet, who said that 153 boys should receive free education and they could come from all colours and creeds. That is a remarkable statement for 1509. It is indicated clearly that there has always been an inclusive nature in much of the Christian education in our country.
	My amendment would say that when groups come together and seek to establish a new faith school, permission will be given only if at least 30 per cent of the children come from other faiths. That is not as it were the ultimate argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, is making; it is a different way of approaching the problem. I say that because the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, have to be met. The ethnic communities and the other religions in our country—not only the Muslims but also the Hindus, Sikhs, the Greek Orthodox and the Jews—have always felt that they should have some share, as it were, which my amendment would still provide.
	My point is that traditionally Anglican schools have not been exclusive for a long time. I went to a state Anglican primary school in Southport. We went to church twice a year. We had a hymn and a prayer at the beginning of the day, but that happened in every school in those days. There was no exclusion: my closest friend was a Jewish boy and I learned about the Jewish faith by going to his home in the evening and finding out how he prepared. We were all in together. I certainly was not told that I was one of the elect and I was going to be saved by going to that school.
	Very few Catholic schools are now exclusive. Originally they were, but I remember visiting several Catholic schools when I was Secretary of State, which included children from all faiths and no faiths, because frankly they had run out of Roman Catholic pupils. I do not believe that the two Christian faiths in this country are exclusive. They are inclusive. I believe strongly that a separate education is not the ideal way forward for our country at the moment. A separate education based on faith means a separate status and eventually a separate community. It is inevitable. In Northern Ireland, apartheid starts in schools; 90 per cent of children in Northern Ireland still go to separate faith schools and look what has happened there.
	There is a growing opposition to more exclusive faith schools. Trevor Phillips, who is the most eloquent spokesman for racial and ethnic equality, has come out against them. So has the National Union of Teachers. David Bell, the former chief inspector, writing a year ago, said,
	"many young people are being educated in faith-based schools with little appreciation of their wider responsibilities and obligations to British society".
	More recently, the director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity has also come out against them.
	Separate faith schools that are exclusive are bad for both the majority community and for the minority community. They are bad for the minority community because they emphasise the separateness and the separate status that that community has—that is what they are there for. It might be ways of handling themselves; ways of dress; all sorts of things, but they are separate. They are not part of the wider responsibilities that David Bell talked about.
	I happened to listen to a broadcast on BBC Radio 4 when I was driving up one morning about a fortnight ago, with a young man from Pakistan who was visiting exclusive faith schools—Muslim and Christian—and non-faith schools. This is what he said:
	"When I went to school in the 1980 state schools like these didn't exist. My parents were Pakistani immigrants—education was to be my way out of working in a factory like my dad. They sent me to a mainly white comprehensive where I was one of a handful of Asians. At this point I should be complaining about feeling alienated and excluded but the truth is—that school was the best thing that happened to me. I learned how to socialise and talk to other kids—unlike the Asian boys who went to the all-Asian schools".
	That is an eloquent expression of someone from a Pakistani background who experienced growing up in our country.
	There is no doubt that the schools are highly exclusive. I have managed to get through the internet the admissions policy of some of these schools, although I am waiting for some others. I have only those from Islamic schools. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and hope he will understand that I have nothing against Islam. As a practising Christian, I have great respect for all other faiths. But the admissions policy is highly selective. Some schools require passport photographs; I do not think that that is done in other state schools. There is one Islamic secondary school that asks:
	"Can your child read the Qur'an fluently? ... Has your child completed reading the Qur'an? ... How much of the Qur'an has your child read? ... How many Surahs of the Holy Qur'an has your child memorised?".
	I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate could tell us how many Christian schools ask whether their pupils have read the Bible and how many things they remember from it. The answer is none—because there is no exclusive questioning of that sort.
	Let us be aware of the exclusive nature of the schools that are being established. Another admissions policy that I have found states that the aim of the school is to produce,
	"total Muslim personalities through the training of children's spirits, intellect, feelings and bodily senses".
	I have nothing against that, but I believe that that instruction should take place in mosques, synagogues, temples and churches. Until 1997, that was the policy. The Government changed the policy, reversing the policy of all previous Secretaries of State, including myself. On the whole we resisted giving permission to exclusive faith schools. In my time, I had no applications from Christian bodies but I had applications from Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh bodies. I always found good reasons why one could not give permission, and I believed that that was the right policy to follow. The Government changed that policy, which was a grievous and huge mistake, and successive generations in our country will suffer from it.
	I should like to see the sort of movement that is now happening in Northern Ireland, where there is a movement to have integrated schools. One school that I have come across is the Hazelwood integrated school, which has 40 per cent Roman Catholics, 40 per cent Protestants and 20 per cent others—other faiths and no faiths. That is the sort of mixture that I am trying to achieve in my amendments.
	Finally, I draw your Lordships' attention to the comments of a Nobel Prize winner and one of our most distinguished academics, Professor Amartya Sen, who was the master at Trinity and is now a professor at Harvard. He won the Nobel Prize in 1998 for his work on economics of equality, poverty and famine and on social choice theory. He is quite convinced that the policy of separate and exclusive faith schools is wrong. I have read that:
	"What grates on Sen is the idea that individuals should be ushered like sheep into pens according to their religious faith, a mode of classification that too often trumps all others and ignores the fact that people are always complex, multi-faceted individuals who choose their identities from a wide range of economic, cultural and ideological alternatives".
	He has said that:
	"Being defined by one group identity over all others ... overlooking whether you're working class or capitalist, left or right, what your language group is and your literary tastes are, all that interferes with people's freedom to make their own choices ... I think there is a real tyranny there. It doesn't look like tyranny—it looks like giving freedom and tolerance"—
	those are the arguments that are used—
	"but it ends up being a denial of individual freedom".
	Those comments are very pertinent today. In our society, which is having a great deal of trouble absorbing different groups, although we are making a better fist of it than most other Western countries, to create exclusive faith schools is fundamentally wrong. At a time when the world is faced with two religious wars, it is extraordinary that we are prepared to consider this. So I hope that your Lordships will give some consideration to the amendment that I have tabled. I am not against the sort of faith schools that exist in our country, but any new ones should not be exclusive. They should have children from other faiths as well.

Baroness Whitaker: In the interests of time, I restrict myself to discussing the amendments in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, dealing only with the curriculum for religion, beliefs and values. I add "beliefs and values" to "religion" because the amendment would broaden the statutory definition of religious education so that it better reflects the more inclusive approach of the 2004 non-statutory national framework for RE produced by the QCA, which the right reverend Prelate commended. That framework referred to "religions and beliefs" and explicitly recommended that "other world views" such as humanism should be studied. I declare an interest as the vice-president of the British Humanist Association.
	The amendment goes on to require voluntary-aided schools with a religious character to follow the locally agreed syllabus for RE rather than their own, putting them in the same position as voluntary-controlled schools with a religious character. By the way, the reference in the Marshalled List should be to Schedule 19 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, not Schedule 8; it is a misprint. I hope that that makes it clear that we are not in any way seeking to deny parents with children at voluntary-aided faith schools the right to have their children receive religious instruction, but are seeking to ensure only that all children in all maintained schools have an entitlement to know broadly what the range of accepted religious and non-religious beliefs are all about.
	Of course, not all locally agreed syllabuses are as broad, balanced and inclusive as they might be, but at least they are subject to an overall structure for the diverse views that they should introduce children to, and they will, one hopes, become even more inclusive as the influence of the non-statutory national framework on RE trickles down to the local committees that set the RE syllabuses.
	In an ideal world, there might be a national curriculum subject of beliefs and values that educated all our children about all our important religious and secular beliefs, underpinned by a thorough education in the universal human rights that the UK has committed itself to in the international human rights instruments. That would be the national basis from which different religions and beliefs would take their own path in the curriculum.
	As it is, we have citizenship education, which includes some human rights education as a part of the national curriculum, and religious education which is also compulsory for all maintained schools, but is not part of the national curriculum. It is the fact that RE is not a part of the national curriculum that this amendment seeks to mitigate. That is why voluntary-aided faith schools do not need to follow the locally agreed syllabus of RE as other maintained schools do, but may follow a syllabus of their own. It also means that the quality of locally agreed syllabuses across the country is fairly patchy, with no common standard. So, requiring voluntary aided faith schools to follow the agreed local syllabus rather than their own would at least mitigate what might be the effects of allowing some faith schools to teach an unbalanced curriculum of religious education, something that many people fear. It would ensure that our children have the opportunity to know what the full range of our heritage of values and beliefs is while learning the particular perspectives of their own.

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 81 in the name of my noble friend Lady Massey. My concern is with extremism and what may be taught in schools run by fundamentalists of any or all faiths, with their belief in the absolute truth of the creation of the world and origin of mankind as delineated in their holy books.
	When I was at school, the theory of evolution was taken as, if I may use such a word, gospel: the good news, the truth, undoubted and rarely questioned. My father was a geologist and a science teacher, and I was brought up on Darwin. Genesis, Adam and Eve and the Flood were taught in what were then called "scripture lessons", but taught as beautiful myths, as stories to be believed in only by a credulous society living in a world before science as we now know it began. Now, thousands believe them and are being taught to believe them. Biology teachers at a sixth form college have told me that many of their students say that they will learn the theory of evolution in order to get their A-levels and go on to higher education, but they know very well it is false and that God created the world in six days.
	The usual answer to the question, "Is creationism taught in faith schools?" is "no" and that what is taught is the national curriculum requirement, the theory of evolution. Those replying usually fail to add that creationism and/or intelligent design is taught alongside it as a viable option, or taught in religious education classes. Professor Steve Jones, addressing the Royal Society, has said that to give creationism and evolution equal weight in education is,
	"rather like starting genetics lectures by discussing the theory that babies are brought by storks".
	The Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches have no problem with evolution, as they have none with the descent of man. Fundamentalists of almost all faiths refuse to accept this and therefore want their children to subscribe to it too. The Seventh-day Adventist school in north London became in 1996 the first school run by a minor Christian denomination to receive state funding. It teaches Darwin because it is obliged to, but teaches creationism as well, as do some Muslim schools and a Hasmonean school which educates more than 1,000 Orthodox Jewish students. The director of Jewish studies at the school has made it clear that he would prefer Darwin to be dropped from the national curriculum.
	I have been told by a child attending one of these schools that we have nothing to fear from global warming because God had promised that the Flood would never be repeated. When students learn that God created the world in six days, they will also hear the extremely sexist viewpoint that a woman was responsible for bringing sin into the world. In the face of fossil and dendrochronological proof, some creationists insist that the earth is 4004 years old and appear to believe that pine trees in California may seem to be nearly 10,000 years old only because God put the rings in their trunks for some obscure purpose intended to deceive mankind. Professor David Read, vice president of the Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific academy, has said:
	"The Royal Society fully supports questioning and debate in science lessons, as long as it is not designed to undermine young people's confidence in the value of scientific evidence".
	Surely the teaching of creationism and such views as I have just mentioned, even when presented alongside the theory of evolution in a cynical attempt to comply with the national curriculum, is done plainly to undermine young people's confidence in proven scientific evidence. Are we in danger of entering a phase of existence in which, thanks to the encouragement of fundamentalism, to believe in creationism is the norm while to accept as truth evolution and the descent of man is an eccentricity? It is a possibility if the present trend in certain schools continues. I therefore support my noble friend's amendment.

The Earl of Onslow: I rise to support my noble friend Lady Flather, but I also have difficulty with supporting her. That may sound slightly schizoid, but if we go back to the Book of Common Prayer, the Authorized Version of the Bible and Shakespeare, those were the great works which were taught in Church schools before state education came along. The Church of England primary school in our village is a totally excellent and tolerant institution. The Roman Catholic school, whose prizes I gave out some years ago, is another excellent school in Guildford. What I suspect has happened is that we avoided the clash to which my noble friend Lord Baker referred—the clash between the Church and the state as happened in France. It was a vicious argument that lasted for 100 years and ended in total victory for secularism.
	However, because the Churches produce such good and tolerant schools, we think, "What a good idea". I also suggest that the Muslims, the Jews and the Roman Catholics are saying that they want to follow the good example of the Church of England in its contribution to education. But the dangers pointed out by my noble friend Lord Baker override that. His speech on the admission criteria of some Muslim schools struck me, first, as something which the great Muslim intellectuals of Baghdad who translated from Greek into Arabic the principles of mathematics, chemistry and algebra, certainly would have regarded as profoundly intolerant. What my noble friend read out for the Committee were the conditions of intolerance. The conditions in Northern Ireland are those of intolerance. It is that intolerance and exclusivity which is harmful to society. We have enough stresses in modern society, and we have enough difficulties with people who come here with completely real faiths that are not the same as what the country has been used to for many years. We must, because we are a tolerant and a successful society, adjust and ensure that we accept those arguments. What we cannot do is to apartheid-ise anything. Ghettoisation would be nothing but extremely bad, so, reluctantly, I come down to the view of my noble friend Lady Flather. I can see the argument for the tolerance of the Church of England system but, reluctantly, I come down to the view of supporting her amendment.

Lord Dearing: My not speaking until now gives me an opportunity to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who raised a couple of points earlier in Committee. She said that all classes of schools have failure—I agree. As has been said, I chaired a group that looked at the future of Church of England schools. That caused me to look around and led me to the conclusion that any justification for the expansion of Church of England schools should be grounded in superiority of academic achievement. In a 400 to 500-paragraph report, only two paragraphs were addressed to that. In them, we referred to a degree of failure. We mentioned two schools that we had visited that were in special measures. We also acknowledged that the Church schools lived in the same world as the rest of us. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, rightly said, they depend very much on getting the right leadership. We counselled the Church not to venture into adding to the number of Church schools, especially as the policy that we recommended was to expand, if at all possible, primarily in areas of the greatest social and economic need. Those schools would therefore be at the greatest risk of failure. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness.
	Reasonable academic performance is a necessary condition of being able conscientiously to recommend an expansion, but that is not a fundamental characteristic of a Church school. Rather, it is having a certain outlook on life. Young people have the experience of living within that community. However, we saw no evidence of any proselytising and seeking to convert children to something that was foreign to them.
	Why then did we recommend an expansion of Church of England schools? When I spoke about this matter on the previous occasion, the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, shook her head when I said that there was parental demand. We had obtained some information on that, otherwise I might not have said it. If I remember the figures correctly—sometimes I do—in 1996, some years before we did our study, there were 1.3 applications for every place in a sample of 80 schools, which is nearly half the total of Church of England schools. By 2000, the figure had risen to 1.6. The right reverend Prelate said that, while the rolls for primary schools nationally had fallen by roughly 4.5 per cent, in Church of England primary schools rolls had fallen by only a third of that, which is further corroborative evidence. We should respond in education to parents' wishes. I understand that that it is a building block of the policy of the Government and the Conservative Party. That was a major element in the report.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, or the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to the Sutton report. The Sutton report stated that the top schools were all characterised, whether they were faith schools or not, by a low proportion of people having free school meals. It is true that the faith schools were heavily represented in the top 200 schools, but the social class question was distinctive, as it was with the other schools. The report went on to point out that whereas the proportion of different social classes in community schools reflected their immediate community, it did not do so in the voluntary aided schools, even though the overall proportions were the same. That is legitimate, because if the faith school is distinctive in wanting in its pupil population a certain element, it has a wider catchment area than the immediate community.
	I would have wished to have heard the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, before I spoke, but as few people were speaking up for faith schools, I felt that it was about time that we had a change of menu. I agree with the first element of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, about beliefs, as long as we can find a way of defining the main beliefs rather than 1,001 beliefs. She will know what I mean. The other amendments in the group refer to importing as a matter of statutory requirement the use of an agreed curriculum into voluntary aided as well as voluntary control schools. That should be an objective, but a good deal of thinking and talking is needed beforewe move to a statutory requirement rather than something that has been accepted by the faiths and is gradually being adopted. We should not go about it this week, but it is an objective that we might look forward to meeting.
	The issue of Muslim schools has come up several times. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, referred to the fact that Roman Catholic schools were originally exclusively for Roman Catholics. I think that thatwas because they were supporting an immigrant community. As time has gone by, they have accepted a wider intake in the great majority of cases. It is not surprising that, when there is a very small number of schools of the faith of an immigrant community, those schools should want to serve that community. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, said that there are 135 Muslim schools. That is a very small number and many of those schools are very small. It is not surprising that immigrants should want the same opportunity as the indigenous population to have their children work within the framework of their parents' faith. If there were 1,000 such schools, it would be a different matter, but the number is small.
	I was listening to a lecture by Prince Hassan of Jordan a couple of months ago—one or two other Peers were perhaps present. He examined the reasons for the world's great problems. Underpinning them all, as he said it, was the divide in dignity. He was referring to his own people in particular and their feeling that dignity is denied them. Similarly, in our own community, we have to be very sensitive to the feelings of those who have come to this country and who are often—this is so of Muslim families—living on low incomes. The families contain many more members than is normally the case. None of the adult members of the family has a job and they live in overcrowded conditions.
	If it was the will of Parliament in some way to block Muslim schools, that would be seen as a profoundly unacceptable signal about their rights as members of our civilisation and as a lack of acceptance of their right to dignity. We should do well to ponder that. I have been into only a couple of Muslim schools, but I have read elsewhere that many of the parents who send their children there are not as well heeled as is typical of the Anglo-Saxon community. They make a great sacrifice. They only pay low fees, and that is reflected in what can be offered them. If there was a bar on any more faith schools in the public sector, the aspirations of quite a number of those schools to come into the public sector and be properly funded with adequate and well qualified teaching staff—aspirations that have been encouraged to some extent—would be denied. The composition of the governing body would not be widened as it otherwise would be. Even if the school is voluntary-aided, it is always a local authority member.
	For a time, the noble Lord, Lord Baker and I had different roles in life and I knew where I stood. He was the Minister and I was the chairman of a nationalised industry who came and made a case to him. On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, I am not speaking for the Church of England at all; I am speaking for Ron Dearing. Of the hundred-odd Church of England schools coming along, 30 per cent must be not of the faith of the foundation. I would say, "No problem, easy!" I nearly said that some might find it difficult to make up the number of the faith. There are definitional problems, but for many long-established faiths this would not be a problem. For the Muslims, however, it could be. I would regret anything that would be interpreted in the Muslim community as a rule that would bite on them but nobody else.

Lord Dearing: I understand. We have both made our points, and I shall not pursue that matter.
	I turn to divisiveness, which has been mentioned again and again. I totally understand it. I do not think bringing in Northern Ireland is a fair analogy. We could debate that on another occasion; it is a rather different situation from that in England. The more that faith schools are committed to pupils of their own faith, the more they have a strong obligation to the whole community to encourage respect for other faiths. They must import into their ethos statement that the school offers active goodwill and respect to fellow citizens of other faiths. They should seek opportunities for joint activities with schools of other faiths, or community schools where there are many of another faith. There is a major responsibility to do that kind of thing, and not stay behind closed doors.
	Finally, if we look back, although faiths say things that are unacceptable to many of us and have made bad mistakes, a great body of good has been done. When the state did not provided schools for the poor, who did? It was the Churches—and not just a few, but by the thousands. When the state provided education in 1870, it had a tough job getting people to move over to it. It is fair to recognise that a great deal of good has been done, and it would be sad if we turned our back on all that has been achieved.

Lord Lucas: I had better speak to my amendments in this group. I have been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that I was enjoying listening too much rather than speaking.
	To start where the right reverend Prelate left off: yes—on consideration and having listened to all the arguments—that is where I find myself. It is enormously important that schools should make a contribution to their local community and, where that is possible—I take the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that that is less possible for newly arrived communities than established ones—they should open their doors and aim to be multi-ethnic schools.
	The right reverend Prelate will know that I have a continuing objection to the admissions practice of some Anglican schools. As many will know, I edit The Good Schools Guide so much of this passes in front of me. Frankly, some Anglican schools are socially selective. They have set their selection procedures so that not only do they get Anglicans but they get middle-class Anglicans. I regard that as destructive. I think that view is shared by most of the Bishops' Benches. As I said at Second Reading, I would be delighted to support any moves from the Bishops' Benches to give them more power to bring these schools into line. Many more Catholic schools do the same thing or are entirely religiously selective. It is time the Catholics joined the rest of us.
	From many Catholic friends and relations I sense that there is a residual feeling of being apart that comes from their Catholic education and from many centuries of persecution. It is time that ended. The way to end it is to follow the route that has been followed by most Catholic independent schools, which is to admit a pretty large proportion of non-Catholics. One thinks of the Catholic schools in the middle of London where there is a great shortage of good education. They are incredibly selective on grounds of religion. The London Oratory and many others effectively exclude large parts of their local community, even the quasi Catholic community.
	I was brought up in a religious family and on Don Camillo. The advice of the Lord to Don Camillo that he must baptise Peppone's child, whatever Peppone's attachment to communism, is entirely the right attitude. Certainly, when it comes to Church schools, I would be quite content, as would many of us—I include myself as, having been brought up on religion, I have abandoned it—for my child go to a Church school. Indeed, I would value the philosophy that goes with such a school; I would value that being part of her life.
	Looking at schools that are essentially secular, such as Camden School for Girls, one can see how much they benefit from large Muslim populations which lend them a very strong moral tone. That is one reason why Camden School for Girls has succeeded. One's child can benefit in many ways from being in a religious atmosphere, which is why a non-religious person might wish to have access to such a school. Therefore, I have a strong objection to the continuance of mainstream Catholic and Anglican schools that practice total insistence on one religion. During Report or Third Reading, I would very much like us to adopt an amendment that would open up those schools.
	I understand that some of the newer and smaller communities will want their own schools and they may feel that their security is bedded in those kinds of school. Where there are only a few, it does not hurt too much. The small collection of Jewish schools in London is tolerable, although I have found it very difficult to deal with the graduates of some of those schools who refuse to break bread with me because they feel that doing so will make them unclean. I find that a difficult attitude to have grown up with; I do not believe that they would have grown up with that attitude if they had gone to a more mixed school.
	I believe that such schools are tolerable in small amounts. It is difficult for the Muslim community because it is numerous. There are difficult relations between Muslims and Christians throughout the world and the Government appear to be conducting a love affair with the Muslim brotherhood which I find extremely difficult to agree with. Naturally, we have fears about these things. But, at the end of the day, what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and the right reverend Prelate said is right: we have to be trusting in these matters. We know how these things have developed in the past—that is fine—so let the community and the community relations mature, but for goodness sake let us give them an impetus. Let us say that any school which is selective on religious grounds has to be prepared to admit, say, 25 per cent of children from other faiths, even though they might not apply. Beyond that, schools should have to make a real effort to bring those children in to integrate with the local community; they have an obligation to interact with other schools and other children of other faiths in a way that might make it unattractive. A school which started off as 100 per cent Muslim or Jewish or Scientologist or whatever and is still that way in 15 years' time might be invited politely to return to the private sector.

Lord Adonis: I think that it is the wish of the Committee that I should now respond to the debate.
	This has been an excellent if emotive debate giving a good deal of food for reflection hereafter. I will start in the spirit of peace and goodwill. After much ministerial deliberation and reflection, we accept most of the spirit of Amendment No. 217A moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to which she has just spoken. Pupils aged over 16 should be able to withdraw themselves from collective worship rather than it being a matter for parental consent, as it is for 16 year-olds and under. We will discuss that further with our partners in the faith communities and beyond, but I will seek to move an appropriate amendment at Report.
	Beyond that, we do not think it right to reopen the whole issue of collective worship on which there is a fairly broad consensus within the educational and faith communities. I say broad rather than universal because nothing pertaining to faith has universal consensus, and I deeply respect the views of my noble friend Lady Massey on this issue. However, in the context of the right of parents to withdraw their children, the flexibilities that schools have in respect of the diversity of their communities and the way that they conduct collective worship, we do not see a case for a wider change.
	I can respond to Amendment No. 83, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough, in an equally consensual spirit. We certainly agree that anyone contemplating proposals to close schools should consider the effect on diversity in the area concerned and in particular if there would be a reduction in the choice of schools with a religious character. Statutory guidance makes it clear that in deciding proposals to close schools of a religious character, the decision maker—currently the school adjudicator but it will become the local authority, to accompany the school organisation committee—should consider the effect that this will have on the balance of denominational provision in the area. The guidance goes on to say that parental demand and the standards of the school should also be taken into account. We will aim to retain these protections in the guidance to be issued under the Bill on which we will consult fully.
	On faith schools, two broad propositions have been put before us. The first is that there should be no more within the state sector, which is in Amendment No. 81 tabled by my noble friend Lady Massey. The second is the proposition that there should be a greater diversity in admissions, which was broadly the proposal of the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Lucas. These are issues on which there are strongly held, passionate views on all sides, which the Government deeply respect. Our job is to take a position which we believe to be consistent with the public interest. I want to set out our position as briefly as I can.
	Taking the right to establish faith schools first, the Government believe it would unacceptably infringe the rights of parents in local communities to havea ban on the establishment of new faith schools. Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides for the right for parents to have their children educated in accordance with their religion and other views.
	Throughout the history of state education in this country, which of course predates the ECHR, Parliament has recognised this basic right and has accordingly agreed to the state funding of appropriately regulated faith schools over and above allowing private faith schools which, apart from closure for reasons of unacceptably poor standards, could only be closed by a fundamental breach of the ECHR.
	But our position is not just a question of the ECHR and historical commitments, important as they are. My party has explicitly supported the right of parents within proper local decision-making processes to establish state-funded state schools within the current regulatory system. Our 2005 manifesto said:
	"Britain has a positive position of independent providers within the state system, including church and other faith schools. Where new educational providers can help boost standards and opportunities in a locality, we will welcome them into the state system, subject to parental demand, fair funding and fair admissions".
	And I should add proper local consultation and decision-making.
	That was the manifesto on which we were elected and we intend to stick to it. I could not put the arguments better than did my noble friend Lady Morris, who was Secretary of State when amendments to the Education Bill 2002 were debated in another place—amendments which, like some of those moved today, would have obliged state faith schools to change their admissions criteria to restrict faith-based admissions. My noble friend, who I was glad to see in her place earlier, said:
	"Our starting point is that it cannot be naturally right in a rich multicultural, multi-faith society that only Jews and Christians have managed to get faith-based schools. We would not look at the leadership of the country, find that it did not include many people of Afro-Caribbean and Asian minority faiths, then turn round and say, 'They cannot have wanted it'. We would say that the structure must work effectively, and it is in that sense that the Government have promoted the wish for more faith schools".—[Official Report, Commons, 06/2/02; col. 896.]
	My noble friend went on to say:
	"I want these schools to be in the maintained sector rather than the independent sector. I want them to be in the framework of accountability and their performance data to be placed in the public domain, as happens in the maintained sector. We do not all agree about that, but it is a strong argument. I also want faith schools to have to make available to their pupils the equal opportunities for boys and girls that schools in the maintained sector are obliged to provide".—[Official Report, Commons, 06/2/02; col. 901.]
	I could not put those arguments stronger myself and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, made some very good points about the benefits. Parents want such schools to be in the maintained sector rather than in the wholly private sector. My noble friend Lord Ahmed made an impassioned speech on this point and I believe that his arguments merit close attention.
	In the maintained sector, there are no fees. In the private sector, there are fees. In the maintained sector, schools must operate any admissions criteria that comply with the School Admissions Code of Practice. In the independent sector, they do have to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act but they have much wider latitude. In the maintained sector, faith schools must have a governing body, including parent, teacher and community representation. In the independent sector, that is not the case. In the maintained sector, schools must employ teachers who have qualified teacher status and head teachers who have the National Professional Qualification for Headship. In the independent sector, they need do neither. In the maintained sector, schools must employ teachers according to the state School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document and accord them paying conditions, including pension rights on this basis. In the private sector, they need do none of these things, and indeed pay rates often in private Muslim schools, which my noble friend referred to, are much lower than they are in state schools. These are all arguments which should be weighed in the balance when local decision-makers decide.
	It is their decisions, not the decisions of central Government, that hold whether it is appropriate for Muslim schools to be able to enter the state system.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
	Clause 15 [Proposals for discontinuance of schools maintained by local education authority]:
	[Amendments Nos. 82 to 84 not moved.]
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	Clause 16 agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Direction requiring discontinuance of community or foundation special school]:
	[Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.]
	Clause 17 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Proposals for establishment or discontinuance of schools in England]:
	[Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 not moved.]
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Alterations that may be made under section 19]:
	[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]

Lord Campbell of Alloway: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements have been made to enable the refuelling at military airfields of civilian aircraft with passengers destined for extraordinary rendition.
	My Lords, at the outset I thank all noble Lords who have waited to speak on this Question. It is an emotive subject that requires objective examination. In particular, I wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, but for whose courageous initiative the Question would not have been tabled, and the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, who has other pressing duties, for taking the Question at this time.
	As there is a well grounded concern and a high level of suspicion that these arrangements are used for extraordinary rendition, resort is had to the advisory role of your Lordships' House to seek to persuade that some measures of safeguard be taken as are to be proposed. If they should commend themselves to your Lordships, the hope is that they should also commend themselves to Government.
	This is an exercise of persuasion, not of confrontation with Government. I speak at no one's behest, and declare an interest as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was informed that the Foreign Secretary was not aware of the purpose of these arrangements. That, of course, is accepted as an assurance on the part of Government. Why were the Government not informed of the purpose? Could it be that these arrangements were the offspring of a private arrangement—a compact—to seal the purpose that Government made in the wake of the 9/11 disaster? Was that compact to be denied at all costs, never to be disclosed, perhaps the hidden key to open the gateway to the explicable, if this was also classified for non-disclosure by the CIA? Such assumptions can be made only if there is no other explanation. As yet, there is none.
	I turn to the proposed safeguard measures—first to withdraw clearance for the landing of these flights for transfer under these arrangements and then to set up an investigation that protects terrorism intelligence and sources, perhaps under the aegis of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, or the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. I am afraid it would appear that the United States would not attend any such investigation.
	The essence of the findings of the report by Amnesty International on 4 April and 14 July is that civil aircraft on charter to the CIA, with people on board selected for transfer by the CIA to a series of highly suspect destinations, are permitted to land and refuel at our civil and military airfields in the United Kingdom under these arrangements for the purpose of extraordinary rendition. The voting list on an amendment to the Civil Aviation Bill tabled by the noble Baroness,Lady D'Souza—I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, in his place, because he had charge of the debate on that occasion and very generously conceded that it was for the House to decide these matters—reflects the cross-party support of 58 noble Lords, who made the compelling assumption that these aircraft were used for extraordinary rendition, even though the amendment was defective. The noble Lord said it was, which I accept for other reasons—the evil not being in the state of the law sought to be enforced. This was revisited during consideration of the Police and Justice Bill.
	The evidence of Lieutenant General Brims to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in open session appeared to accept that planes landed here with people aboard for transport, but that there was no evidence at all that the purpose was for extradition under these arrangements. In an agreed transcript of other evidence from 27 March, it was stated that the Foreign Secretary had made it plain that there is no,
	"evidence to show that there are people on board those planes which do land here who are being transferred for the purposes of extraordinary rendition".
	May I respectfully ask one or two question of the Minister, a veritable master of explaining the inexplicable? I am not certain that it will be possible for the Minister to answer. Why was clearance given to some of these planes to land at military airfields in the UK? I am delighted to see a Minister from the Department for Transport in his place, because the object is to close clearance for these planes and that lies within the aegis of the noble Lord. Is it accepted that the Department for Transport instructed the CAA to give clearance for aircraft identified as on charter to the CIA to land at civil and military airfields in the UK? Did the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so instruct the Department for Transport and, if not, at whose behest were such instructions given? Why were such instructions given without knowledge of the purpose of the arrangements? Was any attempt made over five years to discover the purpose of 185 flights?

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his kind words. I congratulate him on securing this debate and on persisting in trying to deal with this difficult and unacceptable business of extraordinary rendition. This is not an issue that suffers from a lack of concerned attention. To date there have been at least four major reports, including those from the joint All-Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the Venice Commission and the Council of Europe. There are detailed briefings from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Liberty and the International Bar Association, among other human rights organisations. There is the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition and there is comprehensive documentation of all the evidence to date from the House of Commons Library. There are at least two ongoing journalist investigations, and questions in both Houses of Parliament and several debates have taken place in the past year. A case is being brought in the US courts by the American Civil Liberties Union. An amendment to institute a mechanism to ensure that in the future any suspicion is immediately acted on was, as has been said, put forward in the context of the Civil Aviation Bill and is currently in the Police and Justice Bill. Therefore, the topic is well researched and the ground has been well covered in this House.
	All these reports, questions, debates and briefings suggest that the UK and other European countries are guilty of a degree of involvement in extraordinary rendition of foreign nationals suspected of terrorist activity. However, the issue that emerges is the large amount of circumstantial evidence pitted against the Government's repeated assertions that the UK has not and would never condone the practice of extraordinary rendition. Those assertions of course are extremely welcome.
	But is that enough to deter other countries from using UK facilities—military or otherwise—to further their own methods of pursuing suspected terrorists? As has already been said, logically, the possibilities are that, first, whatever happens in other parts of the world, extraordinary rendition has not in any way involved the UK either in the use of facilities, top-level agreements or the intelligence services because of a comprehensive and stringent refusal on the part of the Government to be instrumental in it; secondly, UK facilities and perhaps the intelligence services have been involved without the direct knowledge of the Government; and, thirdly, the Government are aware that extraordinary rendition has on occasion taken place using UK facilities and intelligence services, but there is no, nor is there likely to be, direct evidence.
	At present the first possibility is the one that is put forward by the Government. But that is increasingly difficult to maintain due to more evidence emerging and the admission by senior judicial personnel that many European countries have been guilty of allowing territory to be used for extraordinary rendition. The European Union Justice Commissioner, for example, is calling on Governments to make clear their role in extraordinary rendition. The Swiss senator Mr Dick Marty asserts that collaboration with the CIA is proven. The Council of Europe Secretary General feels that blanket denials of involvement do not constitute an adequate response and he calls for official investigations.
	If the second possibility has any validity, the intelligence and airport services are operating outside the law, which would constitute culpable ignorance on the part of the Government. The third possibility is of course an extremely depressing one and not at the moment a road down which thankfully any of us have to go.
	However, I have to repeat the question: is it enough for the Government to assert their adherence to the UN Convention Against Torture? I suggest not. There is a strong suspicion of wrongdoing and the Government could easily damp down those suspicions with actions designed to prevent any future possibility of involvement in extraordinary rendition, which would at the same time reassure the public of the UK Government's legal and moral commitments.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, as we have heard, there is overwhelming evidence that the UK, while protesting its continuing support for human rights, is still concealing its own part in this illegal practice. All of us here will agree that potential terrorists have to be subjected to rigorous interrogation within the bounds of human rights law, but in the interests of anti-terrorism, in the months after 9/11 the UK, as a key coalition ally, ignored much that was going on in Bagram airport and other US bases in the region.
	Whatever we say on our own behalf, we seem to move in tandem with the United States. It was years before our Ministers began to comment publicly about Guantanamo, except in the well-known cases of British citizens. When President Bush accepted that Guantanamo was no longer a going concern, our Prime Minister and the Attorney-General followed suit. It was a relief to all that the Supreme Court ruled that the military commissions were not properly constituted courts, after months of pretence and pussyfooting.
	Ministers can depend on information and advice from their civil servants; the rest of us can believe only what we are told by friends and sources we trust. Let me recall briefly the case Binyam Mohammed al Habashi, an Ethiopian asylum seeker who came to Britain in 1994 and was granted leave to remain. For several years he lived in north Kensington. He was picked up in Karachi in April 2002 and then began a cycle of interrogation by Pakistan intelligence, the FBI, MI6 and others who suspected he was an al-Qaeda terrorist. He was taken into US custody for rendition to Morocco where he was beaten and tortured over an 18-month period before being taken to Guantanamo.
	During one interview, Binyam said that the MI6 officer was nice to him and gave him a cup of tea, saying he was innocent and that he would soon be sent home. Yet there is strong evidence that during the time he was in Morocco his torturers were relying on and probably conniving with British intelligence. The torture included many known and less known unpleasant techniques, including the cutting of his genitals with a scalpel. It is inconceivable that MI6 was unaware of his rendition and torture, and highly likely that its intelligence contributed to it. He has been languishing in Guantanamo ever since.
	On those rare occasions when governments or law enforcement agencies admit their mistakes, they still pretend to be on the side of the angels and do so reluctantly. The EU Justice Commissioner, as we have heard, admitted for the first time last month that rendition takes place on European soil, and yet the UK is still in denial. The Minister said rather surprisingly at Question Time recently that he did not accept that there has been extraordinary rendition, especially in relationship to Guantanamo. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said during the debate on the Police and Justice Bill that,
	"there is no credible evidence that United Kingdom airspace or territory have been involved in unlawful rendition".—[Official Report, 4/7/06; col. 217.]
	How can anyone be reassured that there is no risk of torture? These statements on their own, however accurate, actually imply the contrary. They show that there is enough uncertainty about the UK's moral position to require a more open debate based on better analysis and detailed enumeration of the facts. It is helpful that the Government are now considering their reply to the reminder of the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the UK's obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture, but the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has been asking these questions for months and is always told that intelligence has all the information. Surely this is no way to conduct business in a fully functioning democracy.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has given us to debate these issues today and I acknowledge the work that has been done by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I shall deal with what might be regarded in the House this evening as mundane facts—just facts. I do want to deal with conspiracy, even if it is thought to be a more colourful approach. I have noted some of the language that has been used in the House about this country: "the probable assumption", "the well grounded concern" and "the real suspicion". The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred twice to the fact that "we turn a blind eye". The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to "concealing illegal practice". Some of that language was used also in the debate on Amendment No. 6 on 28 March, when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, spoke, as he has more or less done tonight, of a private arrangement to conceal the purpose in which Her Majesty's Government were involved in the wake of 7/7 and which should be denied at all costs.
	The allegations that I hear and the conspiracy that is hinted at, which has been followed by the media and in this House, do not appear to be grounded in any real evidence whatever. I say to the noble Lady,Lady Saltoun, that no "repugnant practice" is conducted by this country. I do not accept the allegation of misbehaviour by this country. I reiterate in the clearest terms that the Government have not approved, and will not approve, a policy of facilitating the transfer of individuals through the United Kingdom to places where there are substantial grounds to believe that they would face a real risk of torture—our definition of torture and not that of the United States. Accordingly, I can confirm that no arrangements have been made at military airfields—I shall return to this as I seek to all the questions that were asked—to refuel civilian aircraft with passengers allegedly "destined for extraordinary rendition". As I said in an Answer from this Dispatch Box recently, we have not been involved in extraordinary rendition. For those reasons, I do not accept that there is a need for an investigation. I do not accept that there is any evidence. I do not accept that there is any conspiracy. The Prime Minister was right to put it in terms.
	That may well not satisfy those who ask us to prove the negative—that something has not happened. But one can never prove that. That is never a proper test of any kind of evidence. It cannot be done. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that there is in that sense nothing that can be investigated that will satisfy anybody who adheres to such a conspiracy theory. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they have found no evidence of detainees being rendered through the United Kingdom or the overseas territories since 11 September 2001. There is no evidence of detainees being rendered through the United Kingdom or the overseas territories since 1997 where there were substantial grounds to believe that there was a risk of torture. The Government do not deport or extradite any person to another state where there are substantial grounds to believe that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or where there is a real risk that the death penalty will be applied. This position reflects our obligations under UK and international law, including the European Convention on Human Rights.
	Since before 11 September 2001, we have worked closely with the US to achieve our shared goal of fighting terrorism. Noble Lords have been gracious enough to say that that is important work. As part of that close co-operation, we have made it completely clear to the US authorities that we expect them to seek permission to render detainees via UK territory and airspace on every occasion, and that we will grant permission only if we are satisfied that the rendition would accord with UK law and our international obligations and how we understand them under the UN Convention Against Torture and the European Convention on Human Rights. We are clear that the US would not render a detainee through UK territory or airspace, including overseas territories, without our permission.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asks why we have not, in her view, investigated adequately. We have not investigated inadequately at all. We have not let this country down; absolutely not. We have carefully researched the question of US rendition via the United Kingdom. Jack Straw set out in his Written Ministerial Statement to the House of Commons on 20 January the results of an extensive review of all our official records back to May 1997. There were four cases in 1998 where the US requested permission to render one or more detainees—

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I will deal with the specific matter of Mr Al-Rawi and Mr Al-Banna who came into detention in the Gambia. I confirm in explicit terms here tonight that the United Kingdom did not request the detention of either of the men in the Gambia. We played no role in their transfer to Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay—no role.
	The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, said that he was concerned—and I am concerned—that we should not diminish or demean our democracy. We do not and we will not. Our standards are high and, as I said, I do not accept that we operate some sort of clandestine police estate. That is not the United Kingdom that I know at all. The British Government are certainly committed to protecting the British people from the threat of terrorism, and who needs reminding of the scale of the threat? As we were commemorating 7/7, we saw another brutal and shameful attack; on the city of Mumbai. But we are quite clear in our own minds that we can succeed in meeting the challenge of international terrorism only if our own efforts are grounded in respect for, and the continued promotion of, international law and fundamental freedoms? That is as true in the area of rendition as in any other aspect of our counter-terrorist effort.
	Measures taken by states to combat terrorism must be legal, proportionate and justifiable. Promoting human rights, democracy, good governance and the rule of law is, in the end, the best guarantee of our own security, for it helps stifle the discontent on which the terrorist recruiters prey.
	I know that what I have said will not satisfy all noble Lords in the House. I am afraid that I will have to remain content in my own mind that it does not do so. In this country we do not engage in practices of the kind that have been described. It may be impossible to prove the negative, but that is no basis for people to assume that there has been the kind of behaviour that gave rise to some of the adjectives used. All noble Lords who wish to pursue this matter further should provide far more tangible evidence than the kind of allegations that we have heard. I myself have looked carefully at the Amnesty International report and at the reports made when Jack Straw investigated all the flights where we had contact with the United States, and I have looked at their submissions as well, and I say to noble Lords that these allegations are groundless and baseless and should not be repeated without proper evidence.

The Countess of Mar: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. The noble Lord knows what my opinion is about going to bed at 10 o'clock. In the Companion to the Standing Orders it says it is a firm convention, although the noble Lord says it is a firm convention sometimes, and I might agree with him. The management of the business is absolutely atrocious. I have never seen so many amendments grouped together. When you have a number of speakers with different amendments, you are bound to get a long debate on each of these topics. It is time that the business managers looked to managing the business properly.

Lord Grocott: The Committee will understand that the job of the usual channels is a difficult one. We do the very best we can and one thing I am not modest about is that from the beginning of my tenure as Chief Whip, it was determined that I should try to give notice to the House of everything I possibly could, and most crucially that I should notify the House a year in advance of recess dates. I was advised not to do that by all the wise heads because I was told we would occasionally find ourselves in a situation where, in order to meet the recess date, we would need to sit a little later. And the proposal is, I emphasise to the House, a little later. The 10 o'clock rising time is an advisory rising time and can only be met with the co-operation of the House. We are a self-regulating House and I have no powers of authority over anyone in the House but that rising time has been met spectacularly well this Session. We have rarely sat long beyond 10 o'clock.
	I genuinely apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, but he will understand that this is an extremely important Bill. I worked in education myself. You cannot calculate how long Bills will take; all we can do is estimate. We have no powers to do anything other than estimate that the groups on this Bill on the first two days would take an average of35 minutes per group. Of course people involved in the Bill will say that that is an extremely important Bill and it will take a long time. The Police and Justice Bill, for example, took 20 minutes per group and everyone involved would say that was dealing with extremely important issues. I apologise to the House that this has inevitably meant that we go a little later tonight than I would have liked. It is extremely rare for this to happen. I stay here every night until the cat is put out so I have a greater vested interest than anyone does in completing the matter.

Baroness Walmsley: I have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view. What I want most of all is to scrutinise the Bill properly; I just do not think that we can do it at midnight.
	I beg to move Amendment No. 92:
	Page 13, line 32, at end insert-
	"(g) a reduction in the statutory proportion of elected parent governors on a school's governing body"
	I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 103, 105, 107, 108, 110 andClause 33 stand part, which are grouped with Amendment No. 92. The amendments would prevent any alterations being made to the governance of schools that would result in the reduction of the statutory number of elected parent governors. Therefore, a foundation could not remove parent governors so that it could have a majority on the board. Far from being averse to parents having real power in schools, as claimed on an earlier group by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, we on these Benches believe that governing bodies should be representative of parents and the local community, no matter what model of governance they have otherwise.
	The Minister implied that we could not have trusts without them being given majority control of governing bodies. Why not? I do not see why, if the trust is really operating in the interests of the children and parents rather than in its own interests. Surely the most important people to whom a school should be accountable are the children and their parents. The provision for parent councils that are purely advisory and have no teeth is merely a sop which inadequately makes up for the removal of parents from the organ of real power—the governing body. For 30 years the governing bodies of schools in the UK have operated on a consensus—a partnership between parents, staff, the local authority and the wider community. The governing body of Alsager School, on which I had the honour to serve before I came to your Lordships' House, was a model of such a partnership. We are all aware of the difficulties of getting people to serve on governing bodies these days, because of the great legal burdens put on them. All the same, the model works well and has wide support.
	Parent governors are of particular value in creating links between the governors and the wider body of parents, feeding in their concerns and points of view, and representing the views of the governors to the parents. However, it is important that those parent governors are not just placemen. They have more credibility as independent representatives of parents' opinions when they have democratic legitimacy, so parents appointed to the board by sponsors just will not do.
	In his response to this amendment in another place, the Minister there said that the Bill allowed the right level of flexibility for schools to decide for themselves about the best model for them. He said that the necessary safeguards are built in, including a mechanism for removing a trust or its ability to appoint a majority of the governing body if the governing body feels that that is best. I ask noble Lords: do turkeys vote for Christmas? The idea of a trust school governing body voting to abolish itself is ludicrous. No. We need better safeguards than that.
	On the Question whether Clause 33 shall stand part of the Bill, I say that the clause is quite unnecessary; and this is the kind of thing to which I referred a few moments ago in response to the business statement. Parent councils are purely advisory and no substitute for properly elected parent governors and proper accountability through the ballot box of their election.
	I am passionately in favour of meaningful involvement of parents in their children's schools. I have always been a member of the PTA of my children's schools. I believe that they give the opportunity for vital links between parents and teachers. But parents need an adequate voice on the decision-making body of the school and that is the board of governors. As I said earlier, the parent council is purely advisory and any school which really wants one can set it up now. It does not need this legislation to allow it to do so. It is another of the many parts of the Bill which are superfluous. We are wasting our time talking about them. No, this is a sop since the shift from a community school to a foundation school would entail the reduction of elected parent governors from three to one. Others could be appointed but they would never be regarded as being truly independent of the sponsors and no sponsor would resist the temptation to appoint only those who he believes concur with his point of view.
	The benefits of parent councils are not clear. Why would they be better than three elected parent governors? Why would they be better than a good PTA where home-school links are so often forged? Why, if the Government really want to strengthen the power of parents, do they not strengthen the role of parent governors rather than reducing their number? The Government say one thing about parents and do the opposite. From their deeds shall you know them. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Lord Adonis: Sometimes when the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for whom I have great respect, speaks, I have to pinch myself to check that we are not doing something that is genuinely outrageous, because the terms in which her arguments are made are very strong. But what we are doing here is a perfectly sensible adaptation of existing practice within the schools system. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that what we are seeking to do is a great and radical departure. It is not. The model of governance that we propose for parents is precisely that which currently applies in many thousands of voluntary-aided schools, which are perfectly adequately managed within the state system. I am aware of no representation that parents feel that these schools are less well governed than other schools or that they feel less engaged than parents in other schools—indeed, if parental engagement and attachment to schools is measured by the popularity of schools and the willingness of parents to apply for their children to go to these schools, then the opposite might be held to be the case.
	In fact, in voluntary-aided schools there is no requirement for parent councils—none. I am not saying that the one is a trade-off against the other. We have looked at best practice in this area. In many trust schools, the majority of governors will not be appointed; it is an option to appoint up to the majority. We expect that in many trust schools a minority of the governors would be appointed by the trust, in which case there will be a larger number of parent governors. However, where the majority of governors are appointed by the trust—and that is done by consent with the school or through the process of competition and choice of the best school that can be provided, where it is a new school—they will take on real overall responsibility for governance in the way that the Churches do in their schools. We believe that it would be good practice to have other mechanisms to ensure effective consultation with parents over and above the arrangement for parent councils.
	As Bagehot once famously said of Parliament, the
	"test of a machine is the work it turns out".
	If the evidence from those schools that are governed on this basis is that they are well governed, popular in their locality and have a very strong community mission, and that parents feel well served and are willing to send their children to them, I simply do not understand the alarmist statements made by the two noble Baronesses as to the evil effects that this would have. This is one option that schools and local decision makers can pursue where they think it appropriate. They will do so in the knowledge that it would be giving majority control to a trust whose bona fides they would willingly have accepted as part of the arrangement for the trust school to be taken forward. On that basis, and given our experience of voluntary-aided schools, this seems a perfectly sensible emulation of existing good practice in the schools system and not some breach of fundamental principles. The more one looks at the state education system, the less fundamental they appear, in any event.

Baroness Buscombe: I move AmendmentNo. 114 and speak to Amendment No. 115. Both amendments would remove the right of the local authority to refer proposals involving the acquisition of a trust by a school to the school's adjudicator. We do not see why the power is necessary, given the lack of any similar measure with regard to foundation proposals. We believe that the guidance on the acquisition of trusts, to which the governing body must have regard, is a sufficient safeguard.
	I would like to draw noble Lords' attention to the Government's draft guidance, School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2006. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the regulations sets out the circumstances where the local authority can take advantage of its rights under the section. The circumstances are as follows. For the purposes of Section 21(3), a local authority may only require that such proposals specified in sub-paragraphs (1)(a) to (c) are referred to and adjudicated if:
	"(a) the governing body has failed to adequately fulfil the requirements set out in"
	the guidance
	"on consultation;
	(b) the governing body has failed to have regard to the responses to the consultation; or
	(c) the local education authority consider that the foundation will have a negative impact on standards".
	While these criteria seem superficially restrictive, the terms used still leave a great deal of power in the hands of the local authority. This sample suggests many pitfalls. How is the local authority to demonstrate that the governing body has failed to have regard to responses to the consultation? Would the governing body have had to have acted extremely unreasonably in its decision or would it be sufficient to cite a handful of vocal opponents to the proposed trust in evidence? Similarly, there are concerns about the nature of a "negative impact on standards". Does this refer to standards at the school or the standards of all schools in the area? If all schools in the area, could a local authority not contrive some spurious argument based on its opposition to the trust model to justify referral to the adjudicator? It is difficult to decide what impact a foundation will have until it actually runs the school.
	Such ambiguities risk allowing local authorities to thwart the movement towards the system of independent state schools that the Bill intends to create—a principle that has received support right across your Lordships' House, from the Back Benches opposite to those that cross the House and those behind me. I believe that the statutory guidance together with the measures in Clauses 32 and 33 offer sufficient safeguards to remove the right of referral to the adjudicator. I remain unconvinced that the decision to acquire a trust differs to such a degree from becoming a foundation school that a special right of review is needed in this case. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 116, 116A and 116B, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley.
	Amendment No. 116 is probing, because I wondered whether the Minister could explain a little more. We were unable to understand what the regulations were saying on this occasion. I wondered if the Minister could explain the regulations to us. Paragraph 3 is a lovely piece of speak:
	"Regulations under section 20 may restrict the matters to which a local education authority may have regard in deciding whether to require proposals to be referred to the adjudicator"
	and so forth. We would be grateful if the Minister could explain precisely what those regulations are trying to get at.
	Amendments Nos. 116A and 116B we are putting forward on behalf of the Association of Colleges, which is worried about the position of further education colleges, particularly in relation to post-16 education and 14 through to 19 years. Clause 22 sets out the rights of interested bodies on any proposals made under Clause 20 and the referral of these proposals to the adjudicator in certain circumstances. Under the terms of the Bill, any school that wanted to establish or expand the sixth form would have to apply to the local authority for approval. We discussed a little earlier that the school organisation committees will now be abolished and it will be a matter for decision by the local authority itself. Yet, post-16 education is funded not by local authorities but by the local learning and skills councils. Therefore, local authorities would be in a position of approving new sixth-form education and the numbers associated with that, but with no accompanying responsibility to fund it. Many local authorities want the majority or even all the schools in their area to have sixth forms and the Government have made this easier under the terms of the five-year plan. New school sixth forms should offer to local youngsters different provision from that which is already available. That is not always the case. The opening of a new school sixth form can often duplicate courses at other post-16 providers. There needs to be a stronger system than that proposed under the terms ofClause 22, whereby the local authority will make a decision and only then can the adjudicator be asked to make a judgment.
	Amendment No. 116A would enable the Learning and Skills Council and the local dioceses to refer any proposals to the adjudicator before the local authority takes the decision. The Association of Colleges has concerns that it would be much more difficult for the adjudicator to overturn an original decision and that, when asked, he or she would be able to intervene earlier in the process to ensure that all local views are taken into account. He or she is an independent arbiter. Their involvement would reduce the possibility of long running disputes that may occur when various bodies disagree.
	Amendment No. 116B would specifically allow not only the Learning and Skills Council but also schools and colleges to refer a proposal to the adjudicator where it relates to provision for 14 to 19 year-olds. That would ensure that the Learning and Skills Council is not put in the difficult position of trying to represent the views of the Government as well as those of local providers. The colleges feel very strongly that they should be able to speak for themselves. The Government rightly want to promote choice, but it is vitally important that colleges and schools need to be able to participate actively in the decisions to ensure that the widest possible choice is offered locally. After all, they are the ones on the ground who best understand the needs of local people.

Lord Adonis: In respect of the noble Baroness's last remarks, I understand the points that she makes about the post-16 provision and the need for full consultation. The Learning and Skills Council and local colleges would be consulted about the proposals.
	With regard to the referral of trust proposals to the adjudicator, the important distinction that needs to be made is that a trust proposal of itself would not make any difference to post-16 provision or the post-16 character of a school. Any school, whether a foundation school, a non-foundation school or a trust school, that wishes to change the post-16 character of the school would need to publish statutory proposals under the arrangements that we debated earlier today. They would need to go through the statutory processes, including local decision making and, in practice, local decision makers would not be able to make those decisions unless there was a funding agreement with the Learning and Skills Council. Indeed, there are recent decisions by the adjudicator in respect of that matter. The adjudicators have not been prepared to agree to post-16 provision where no funding arrangement agreed by the Learning and Skills Council is in place.
	I understand the noble Baroness's point that the body providing the funding and having overall responsibility for planning this provision must be a party to decisions. In fact, that is the case. The key point about the local authority as the guardian of the interests of the local community having power to refer to the adjudicator, but not the Learning and Skills Council, is that in respect of post-16 provision a trust proposal could not also double as a proposal to open a sixth form or change the post-16 character of a school. I hope that that reply meets the point.
	On who can refer trust proposals to the adjudicator, or, taking the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, whether there should be referrals to the adjudicator at all or whether local decision-making should not involve the right of a local authority to refer to the adjudicator, I believe that we have struck a fair balance. We want the local authority to have the right to be able to refer on the basis of standards at the school, not more general standards, or inadequate consultation. The local authority must judge for itself whether it believes standards are at risk by a trust proposal or that there has been inadequate consultation. Having done that, this is then a matter for the adjudicator to decide. We think that that is the right way to proceed.
	However, on Liberal Democrat AmendmentsNos. 114, 115 and 116, we do not think that it is right to have an open-ended right of appeal. The local authority can be trusted to make sensible judgments on behalf of the community to refer trust proposals to the adjudicator, which is the basis on which we should act in this regard. We think that we have struck a fair balance. We could have gone further and given wider rights of reference to the adjudicator, but we thought that the role of the local authority was most important. That would seek to take account of others who are making these decisions. Equally, on something as important as the acquisition of a trust, which could lead to the appointment by that trust of a majority of the governing body, if there are concerns by the local authority that this would have a prejudicial effect on standards or that there hasbeen inadequate consultation, it is right that this should be subject to some independent review. Local adjudicators, who are now skilled in taking decisions of this kind about school organisation in the best interests of education in that community, are the appropriate people to make these decisions.

Lord Adonis: I hope that the noble Baroness does not feel that she has reached her vocation as a Labour rebel but, if she does, she is very welcome to join us on this side of the House.
	My understanding of Amendment No. 132E, to which she spoke and which as she said was moved in another place, is that it would enlarge the scope for local authorities in seeking transfers so that land could be sold, for example, for housing or to provide a facility such as a transport depot or a refuse site. What a local authority might seek to get a transfer order in respect of a school site for is left much more to the discretion of the authority. Our concern on this amendment is to protect the educational interest, which local authorities should be seeking to safeguard over the transfer of educational sites.
	I should make it clear that the requirements on trusts are that they should operate for educational purposes and in the best interests of the educational community they serve, not to engage in property transactions of a kind for which there are plenty of regulations laid down to prevent them if they do not remain true to their purpose. That is why we have said that the stated purpose for which a local authority may seek a transfer order should relate to the purposes of the school, to another educational use or to the delivery of children's services, and not beyond that purpose. We seek simply to safeguard educational interests in the case of an authority which might seek to take the opportunity of a transfer to trust status to try to transfer land right out of educational purpose. Earlier in our debates the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to the important issue of playing fields. Let us be clear on what will happen if local authorities are given wider rights. It would not be the essential core buildings of a school which local authorities not having regard to the educational interest might seek to transfer to other purposes, it will be ancillary sites. The most obvious of those sites will be playing fields or vacant land. Our concern is to safeguard the educational interest.
	In respect of the PFI deal issue raised by the noble Baroness, I am advised that even though the local authority remains the signatory to the PFI deal, the governing body would have to pay the unitary charge. However, it could not unilaterally break any agreement made by the predecessor governing body. It would inherit the obligations that were made before, so there would be no change in that respect.
	I turn now to the five amendments in this group spoken to by the right reverend Prelate. Amendments Nos. 128 and 131 concerns the details of trusts and trustee rights which have consequences in charity law as well as in education law. I have requested my officials to work further with the Church's lawyers, and if necessary with the Charity Commission, to explore these highly technical matters. I will keep him informed of progress with a view to reaching an agreed position before we come to the Report stage. Amendments Nos. 130 and 132 impose duties on the adjudicator in respect of compensation to trustees for costs while the adjudicator considers referrals, and a duty to hold a public hearing. Neither of these provisions, we believe, are required in the Bill, but are better dealt with in guidance to which the adjudicator has a statutory duty to have regard. We have made guidance available to the House which sets out our position on these matters and it is our intention that this guidance will be further developed in the light of experience.
	Amendment No. 137 would require the Secretary of State to purchase playing fields and adjacent land from trustees when he refuses consent for playing field disposals under the provisions of Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which has been referred to several times in our debates. This section covers protections for school playing fields to prevent them being sold off to the detriment of the sporting facilities available to the school and the local community. The provisions of Schedule 4 bring the trustees of foundation and voluntary schools in line with other categories of school in having to seek the consent of the Secretary of State when disposing of any playing field land which has been provided or enhanced at public expense. We have considered representations made by Church lawyers in this area, but we believe that the extension of protection to playing field land in these respects is right. There is rightly no requirement in existing legislation, the 1998 Act, for the Secretary of State to purchase land when he refuses consent to disposal. In some cases that could be a hugely expensive undertaking and we do not believe it would be right to introduce such a provision for some categories of owners of publicly funded land rather than others.
	We understand that the concern behind the amendment relates to hard play areas, playgrounds directly attached to school buildings which come under the provision of the Act. Should the Secretary of State refuse an application for disposal, it could blight the sale of a discontinued school owned by trustees, including Church trustees. However, a general consent for disposal of such land already exists from the Secretary of State, provided that the land is not needed by another school. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
	Finally, the provisions of Schedule 4 allow a local authority to seek the transfer to it of surplus publicly-funded school land that is owned by governing bodies, foundation bodies, or trustees. We have deliberately restricted the purposes for which such a transfer can be sought, so that school land continues to be used for the benefit of the children and young people in the area.
	The great majority of the government amendments to Schedule 4 in the group are technical, consequential and repetitive, and I have written to noble Lords about them. School land can be owned in a number of ways by different categories of bodies, reflecting the extremely complex history of the development of school sites. It has been acquired and funded through a number of routes. It is necessary for legislation relating to school land to include all those possibilities, and the amendments seek to tie up loose ends.
	The provisions in Schedule 4 mean that where there is not local agreement to disposal or reinvestment proposals, or a claim by a local authority for a share of the proceeds relating to public funding, the schools adjudicator will determine. The amendments, which have been discussed in detail with the Churches that are principally affected, make clear that provisions apply only to land that is acquired or has been enhanced by public funding and to that share of proceeds that can be attributed to public funding and not that share that could be attributed to trustees in respect of that land. They also define public finding more clearly, and they make procedures simpler and clearer.
	They provide that where a local authority successfully objects to a proposed land sale or deployment on the grounds of local need, the land should be transferred to the local authority expeditiously for proper consideration, which meets one of the major concerns that the Churches had. They also replace a complete moratorium on disposal until any matters referred to the schools adjudicator are determined, with a moratorium only where the authority has objected to the disposal itself in question, which we think is a more sensible way of proceeding. I hope that has given the right reverend Prelate some comfort.

Baroness Walmsley: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 139A, 139B, 139C, 140A and 140B in this group. First, I shall mention Amendment No. 139 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, who is unable to be with us. This is another place in the Bill where we believe the well being of the child should be added. The noble Baroness has placed it right up there with the duties of the governing bodies, where it should be—at the basis of the activity of the school alongside the achievement of educational potential.
	I have added my name to Amendment No. 142 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, to which she has just spoken so effectively. The reason why I prefer her amendment to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is that it seeks to replicate the situation that applies to looked-after children, in that the school should have a dedicated teacher who is responsible for supporting that other particular group of very needy children who need particular support from the school. The fact that she has paralleled that situation which already exists for looked-after children with this other group of young carers who have different needs, but none the less very important needs, is what makes her amendment particularly attractive to me.
	I shall not speak to Amendment No. 184B, as we have changed it and put it in a different place in the Bill. It belongs in the discipline section and the bullying section. We shall come to it later in our debates.
	Amendment No. 139A adds academies, city technology colleges, and city colleges for the technology of the arts to the list of schools that must have regard to the relevant children and young people's plan. The Minister is always telling us that those schools, although they are independent, are actually community schools. If that is so, there is no case for them to be excluded from the duty to have regard to the children and young people's plan for the area. To have no regard to that plan would be a recipe for chaos and discrimination in the area and the children who would suffer would, as usual, be the most vulnerable.
	Amendments Nos. 139B and 140B have been suggested to us by the LGA. They would ensure that the Bill strengthens the contribution of schools to the improvement of all of the five well being outcomes for children, as set out in the Children Act 2004, and not just educational attainment. Local authorities have, of course, embraced the provision of that Act. As a key plank of the Children Act 2004, local authorities are required, in conjunction with their local partners, and in consultation—this is most important—with children and young people themselves, to produce the children and young people's plan. Government guidance describes the document as,
	"a single strategic overarching plan for all local services for children and young people".
	Both in the SI and in government guidance there is a clear onus on local authorities to ensure that the schools are consulted and have full input into the process. That onus is only in one direction at present. Schools are not currently required to act within the provisions of the plan once agreed. Given the obvious importance of schools in delivering the educational fulfilment and wider elements of the well-being of children, and given that the Government have described the children and young people's plan as an overarching plan for all services affecting children and young people, we believe that the onus on governing bodies to comply with local partners' plans must be strengthened to ensure coherent and effective local delivery of the well being of children and young people.
	Amendment No. 139C is from the NSPCC, which welcomes the new duty that schools must have regard to any relevant children and young people's plan, but would like to see an amendment to this clause which makes it clear that the school, parents of registered pupils and the registered pupils themselves must be involved in the development of the plan from the outset. That would ensure that the plan is both relevant and applicable to all schools, parents and children in the local authority. Of course, noble Lords will realise that the inclusion of pupils in the development of the children and young people's plan is in line with Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
	The NSPCC also suggested AmendmentNo. 140A. It believes that the duty to improve the well-being of children should be included alongside the general duties of a governing body of a maintained school to direct the conduct of a school. That would complement the duties in the Children Act 2004 placed on local authorities and other institutions and bodies with responsibilities for children's welfare. In that way, it is very similar to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to AmendmentsNos. 143B, 143C, 145, 145A and 166A. This is part of a large portfolio of amendments that cover selection procedures of one sort or another in relation to admissions. Amendments Nos. 143A, 143B, 143C and 145 relate to Clauses 37 and 38. Clause 37 deals with selection by ability and Clause 38 with the code of admissions. On selection by ability, we on these Benches support the government policy of restricting selection by ability. The aim of the amendments is to strengthen the provisions of Clause 37 in this respect.
	Amendment No. 143A adds to the schools that come within the bounds of these restrictions academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts, which at present fall outside the restrictions suggested by Clause 37. The Government will tell us that academies and city technology colleges are required by their funding agreements to select broadly from across the local community. We accept that this may be the case—it is written into their funding agreements—but we would argue that if this is so and that means that they will not select by ability, then why can that not be in the Bill? Why can they not be added to the maintained schools in the Bill? Why should they always fall outside the general provisions that apply to other schools?
	Amendment No. 143B adds no selection by aptitude to no selection by ability. This issue takes us back to the old arguments about the difference between aptitude and ability. In general, our Benches are sceptical about selection by aptitude, with perhaps two exceptions: sport and music. Otherwise we can see little case for any element of selection by aptitude where secondary schools have various specialisms. How many of these specialist schools select by aptitude? How many have needed to have these provisions? Is it a necessary provision for them to retain in the Bill?
	Amendment No. 143C takes us forward toClause 49 and the issue of pupil banding. In effect, it reinforces Amendment No. 143B—on selection by aptitude—by suggesting that selection should be permitted only for the purposes of pupil banding. At this stage, I ask the Minister a question that might be better asked when we reach Clause 49: how feasible is it to apply banding systems to just one school? Surely, if banding is to be applied, it has to run across all the schools within a community served by those schools. Does banding applied to a single school make any sense at all?
	Amendment No. 145 relates to an issue that we on these Benches feel rather strongly about. If we are to try to get to a needs-blind application system for places at popular secondary schools, just as with examinations, applications should be anonymous, judged on their own merits, the names being attached only after the decisions have been made. That was one of the suggestions put forward by the Select Committee when it considered the White Paper that preceded the Bill. We would have liked to have seen the Select Committee's suggestion incorporated in the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to achieve precisely that.
	I turn to Amendment No. 145A, which relates to Clause 38 and the code of practice for admissions. The main purpose of this amendment is very similar to that of Amendment No. 146; namely, that the code of practice for admissions should be subject to positive resolution by both Houses of Parliament. In its briefing for the Second Reading debate, the Association of School and College Leaders argued that if the code is to become mandatory, it is reasonable to require it to pass through proper parliamentary scrutiny. We are very sympathetic to that point and have therefore tabled this amendment. The difference between our amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is that under the procedures that we propose, if the code is not approved, it is open to the Secretary of State to amend and re-table it before both Houses; whereas our reading of the Conservative amendment is that once the code has been rejected, the Secretary of State can never lay a further proposed code.
	Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 166A, yet another amendment that seeks to extend the application of the admissions code not just to maintained schools, which are defined in the Bill as community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and foundation schools and, in future, trust schools)—but also to academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for technology for the arts. In this case, it is a question of banning interviews. In our view, if interviews are regarded as bad practice for one kind of school, the code should be applied equally to all other schools funded from the public purse, whether so-called independent state schools or not. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 144, regarding the use of home school agreements and admissions, and to AmendmentNo. 146. I also give notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 38, regarding the admissions code, stand part of the Bill. I will also speak to Amendment No. 169, regarding interviews allowed for children over compulsory school age and Amendments Nos. 176 to 178, regarding banding.
	Amendment No. 144 introduces home-school contracts as part of the admissions code. It offers an incentive and a positive relationship between the family and the school from the outset of a child's education. We agree with the Government's sentiments outlined in the White Paper regarding the reinforcement of parental responsibility for discipline. At Second Reading, I voiced my concerns about parenting orders. They are reactive measures to poor discipline, offering little more than enforcement, and they fail to create overall results.
	The child impact statement issued by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children points out:
	"The extension of parenting orders raises questions about due process in terms of resorting to enforcement measures where no offence has been committed".
	Ultimately, this measure is counterproductive and creates a barrier between parent and school.
	A constructive approach is required. By introducing a contract at the start of a child's education, schools and parents will work in a constructive partnership by actively practising an ethos of discipline. Agreeing to an informal contract between school and home, both teachers and parents send a message to children that behaviour in the home and at school are considered to be of the same or similar importance, with the same or similar acceptable standards expected. This amendment is not intended to be a mechanism to enable teachers to tell parents how to parent and it will not enable parents to tell teachers how to use discipline. It is a simple agreement between parents and schools intended to ensure that they both have an effective tool to help them to tackle serious problems of truancy and attendance, and discipline in the classroom.
	I turn to Amendment No. 146 and the Question whether Clause 38 should stand part of the Bill. These concern the admissions code. Amendment No. 146 would ensure that the code for school admissions would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it could come into force. That reflects the change in the nature of the new code for school admissions compared to its predecessor, the code of practice for school admissions. The code of practice is made under Section 94 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which Clause 38 amends. It required bodies and persons exercising functions under that chapter of the 1998 Act only,
	"to have regard to any relevant provisions of the code".
	The new code is far more prescriptive. As envisaged under Clause 38, the code for school admissions will,
	"impose requirements, and may include guidelines setting out aims, objectives and other matters",
	rather than the less constricting Clause 84(2) of the old arrangement whereby:
	"The code may include guidelines setting out aims, objectives and other matters in relation to the discharge of their functions under this Chapter by local education authorities and such governing bodies".
	Bodies and persons exercising functions under the relevant chapter of the 1998 Act will be expected to "act in accordance" with the code rather than "have regard to it". The skeleton admissions code makes clear at paragraph 2 that it,
	"sets out statutory (i.e. imposed by primary or secondary legislation) and other mandatory requirements imposed by this Code".
	According to that paragraph, chapter 1 of the skeleton code sets out,
	"admission practices and oversubscription criteria that must not be used in the allocation of school places and provides guidelines and requirements for fair admission arrangements".
	It is clear that this code is much stronger than the one made under existing legislation. It is also clear that the change in the status of the code was made to win the support of various rebel groups within the Labour Party.
	It was not a proposal contained within the White Paper. Paragraph 3.22 on page 46 of the White Paper states:
	"No one approach towards admissions will work in all circumstances. This is why we want to ensure that all self-governing schools ... are free to use the approach to fair admissions that they think will best meet their local circumstances, as long as it is compatible with the Admissions Code".
	The public face of government was consistent with the White Paper. All radio, television and newspaper interviews given by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State between the publication of the White Paper in October 2005 and the concession letter of 6 February this year categorically ruled out the code of practice having any more statutory compulsion than it had already. On 24 November, the Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly, said in another place that:
	"The code is established on a statutory basis, but there is discretion and flexibility in it to adapt admissions to meet the specific ends of a school and the pupils in the area".
	Asked by the then shadow Education Secretary, David Cameron, if she would rule out making the code of practice a statutory code, the Secretary of State replied:
	"I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the code achieves its ends of ruling out selection by ability on its current statutory basis. He is confused—the code already operates on a statutory basis. Schools take it into account, and then the adjudicator, which is also statutory, can use its discretion to say whether the school has interpreted it correctly. Interpretation of the code, however, is very important for schools that want to create their own distinctive ethos".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/05;col. 1644.]
	That was said by the then Secretary of State for Education.
	The Prime Minister said at his press conference on 23 January:
	"I can't agree, for the reasons we have given on many occasions, that this code becomes statutory".
	The Government retreated in their 6 February letter to the Education and Skills Committee in which the then Minister said:
	"As you know it has always been our intention that the Code of Practice on admissions should have real force".
	The wording in Mr Justice Jackson's judgment in the London Oratory School case, which involved the governing body of that school and the schools adjudicator, shows how prescriptive the code can be. He said:
	"Let me first consider the statutory effect of the Code. Section 84(3) of the 1998 Act imposes an obligation, first on the Governors of the Oratory School and then on the Adjudicator 'to have regard to any relevant provisions of the Code'. The phrase 'to have regard to' means to take into account. It does not connote slavish obedience or deference on every occasion",
	which I suspect could reflect the new provisions.
	The code could evidently be incredibly restrictive. Indeed, the Bill's powers could be used to impose a single admissions criterion across the country. That is why we feel that if there must be a strengthened code, accompanying it should be a high level of parliamentary control embodied in the affirmative resolution procedure. However, our preferred solution would be to remove Clause 38 altogether. It is unnecessary.
	First, to impose the code with that additional strength requires us to anticipate all the varied decisions in which a school might find itself. We need to ensure that schools have sufficient flexibility to respond to local needs when setting up their arrangements. In relation to guidance for Clause 3 the Minister in another place stated:
	"When we are recommending good practice, it goes into guidance and it is for local bodies to take it into account sensibly in their local situations."—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 30/3/06; cols. 152-153.]
	Why should schools not have the power to tailor their admissions arrangements to local circumstances? I suspect that the furore surrounding admissions reflects a left-wing preoccupation with admissions rather than with standards. The Government rationale for the alteration has not been consistent. The letter of6 February to the Education and Skills Select Committee stated that the change was prompted by "recent legal judgments" that,
	"may have weakened the perceived force of the Code".
	But that legal judgment had occurred before the publication of the White Paper. In fact, the London Oratory School case was decided in December 2004, some 10 months before the publication of the White Paper. Had the Government truly intended to strengthen the code, they had months in which to make their intentions clear. The fact that they did so only when threatened with a rebellion inside their own party is extremely telling. The words in the White Paper belie the Government's real stance:
	"We recognise that no form of admissions arrangements can increase the number of places at an oversubscribed school. This is why we are continuing to increase the number of good schools and the number of places in good schools".
	Our preoccupation should be with the creation of more good school places, not the shifting of one set of children out of a good school and replacing them with another. That merely substitutes one injustice with another. The disparity in our education system is caused by a lack of good school places, not in the fact that one school might have slightly different admissions policies.
	I turn to the skeleton code. It is a pity that we were not presented with a more detailed example. However, we are satisfied that it goes no further than the draft code that was withdrawn last year. The code recognises that first preference first is poor practice. That is welcome, as first preference first schemes often lead to parents choosing schools tactically rather than on the basis of genuine preference, particularly where there are grammar schools in an area. If specialist schools decide to select 10 per cent of their intake by aptitude, it will be even more important that the decision is taken on the basis of the fairer equal preferences system.
	I have concerns with some aspects of the code. It continues to outlaw making admission conditional on signing a home school contract, an issue on which I hope to speak later. I am concerned also about the less technical wording of the part of the skeleton code concerning social fairness. The code states at paragraph 1.27:
	"Admission authorities should analyse information about their intakes, and where possible their applicants, to find out whether they attract a wide range of families or whether their school fails to attract all sections of local communities".
	I should like the Minister to reassure me that that will not impose a bureaucratic burden on schools. It is important that schools do not discriminate in their admissions on irrelevant grounds. However, since schools are legally forbidden from selecting on the basis of social background or income, there is a risk that schools might make great efforts to ensure a fair intake without any assurance that they will be successful. I am grateful to have been able to place these matters on record. Our amendment would ensure that the new code of admissions was subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We on these Benches consider that to be a necessary process for ensuring that schools are not subject to undue burdens.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 176, 177 and 178 on banding. I will return briefly to an issue raised by my honourable friend Nick Gibb MP in another place. I will not go into it again in great detail as I hope that having returned with a slightly altered amendment the Government will be minded to accept this one in your Lordships' House, having been sympathetic to the principle in another place.
	I set out the position from these Benches at Second Reading. I firmly believe that banding is nothing more than streaming outside the school gates. I believe that in its purest form it leads to social engineering and can seriously fetter parents' choice of schools. As such, it goes in principle against the driving forces of this Bill. However, that is the principle of banding in its purest form. While in principle it poses serious problems, in practice it can be shown to work. CTCs, especially the Thomas Telford school, benefit hugely from using banding in conjunction and, as such, I would not wish to fetter the choice of schools to use banding as a method of selection.
	These amendments make it necessary for local education authorities that are admission authorities to get the consent of governing bodies when introducing all forms of banding. As currently drafted, Clause 49 provides for governing body consent only to the new form of banding that is introduced by new Section 101(1A) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Amendment No. 176 is a technical amendment that ensures that banding can be introduced only with the consent of governing bodies when they are not their own admissions authorities. Amendment No. 177 is a clarificatory amendment to ensure that consent to banding is necessary only when first introduced rather than every year that the admission arrangements are determined. I beg to move.